Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir John Haslam, late Member for the Borough of Bolton, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMBASSADORS, RUSSIA AND POLAND.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making arrangements for the British Ambassadors to the Russian and Polish Governments to write an account of the events of the last few years on the lines of the permission recently granted to the former Ambassador to the German Government?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Has there been any request from either of those Ambassadors on such lines?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Is Sir Nevile Henderson still in the service of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Butler: So far as I am aware he is still a member of the Diplomatic Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

2. Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the regulations published, on 30th March, by the Tsingtao Municipal Council empowering the municipality to commandeer land in the district and forbidding the transfer of the ownership of land without the permission of the authorities; and what steps he has taken to protect British interests?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It appears that on 1st April the Special Municipal Administration at Tsingtao issued regulations removing certain restrictions previously imposed. His Majesty's Government naturally reserve all rights of British subjects under these regulations, but up to the present no actual case has arisen in which British interests are affected.

3. Mr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the refusal of adequate wharfage facilities at Tsingtao still continues; that the additional berths understood to have been opened to three-Power vessels on 13th January were not available until 20th March, and then only to a limited extent, although they had been frequently vacant during the period; and whether he will lay on the Table a report on the whole question of discrimination by the Japanese authorities against British shipping?

Mr. Butler: In recent weeks some three-fourths of all British vessels calling at Tsingtao have been allotted berths at the wharves. The additional berths, opened in January, were made available to British ships for the first time on 4th and 5th May. Though the situation cannot be described as satisfactory, there is a noticeable change for the better in the treatment of third-Power nationals and shipping. As regards the last part of the Question, full information has been given to the House from time to time, and under present circumstances my Noble Friend is not prepared to lay further Papers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSY, ROME (DEMONSTRATION).

Colonel Burton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement relative to the interference with officials of the British Embassy at Rome?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The incident has been satisfactorily disposed of between the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, and is regarded as closed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (AMERICAN SUPPLIES).

Captain Plugge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he can make any statement on the production, delivery and qualities of the aeroplanes which have been ordered in America since the start of the war?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to give details of the numbers, types and delivery dates of aircraft that have been ordered from America. I can say, however, that very large orders for up-to-date types have been placed in that country, and their delivery is being expedited to the utmost possible extent.

Captain Plugge: Are there other neutral countries, such as Italy, from which we could buy aeroplanes?

Colonel Llewellin: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question down.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister appreciate that his statement that "delivery is being expedited to the utmost possible extent" is exceedingly vague? Could he not give an assurance that deliveries are coming rapidly to hand to meet the deficiencies?

Colonel Llewellin: I am afraid I must adhere to the statement that it would not be in the public interest to give specific dates of these deliveries.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not asking for details or delivery dates, but merely for an assurance—for which we have long asked—that deliveries are coming to hand.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Minister investigate the suggestion that has been

made as to the possibility of buying wholesale quantities of aeroplanes from Italy?

Colonel Llewellin: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS (WELFARE ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the arrangements made generally for welfare work in factories engaged on naval work; what persons or organisations are in charge of it; whether it is being done through a Government Department or voluntary agency; and the average and maximum hours of work, including overtime?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to Admiralty establishments. The review of welfare arrangements in Admiralty establishments is the task of the Admiralty Industrial Council and the local Whitley committees, on which Admiralty officials and trade union representatives serve. The average and maximum hours of work vary from one establishment to another. Wherever practicable, night and day shifts are worked, so that the working hours do not exceed 60a week. Officers-in-charge of establishments have general instructions to limit overtime so far as is possible without prejudice to the supreme object of winning the war.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Are these factories subject to factory inspection in the ordinary way?

Sir V. Warrender: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA.

NEWSPAPERS (PAPER SUPPLIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that supplies of paper for newspapers and journals in our West African Colonies are fairly apportioned as between those of official and conservative outlook and those that express native and progressive opinions?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The individual newspaper proprietors have been left to make their own arrangements for the supply of newsprint in the West


African Dependencies. The question of apportionment by Government does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Member realise that there have been certain complaints of unfairness and of inability on the part of native newspapers to secure sufficient paper? Would he look into the matter?

Mr. Hall: It was pointed out in my reply that the Government have no power to deal with this matter. It is entirely a matter for the newspaper proprietors.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the official outlook also a progressive one?

ECONOMIC SITUATION.

Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate average increase in wages paid to natives in our West African Colonies, and the approximate monetary increase of native farmers now as compared with 1st September, 1939; whether he will also give figures showing the increase during the same period of prices of commodities generally purchased by those natives; and whether there has been any increase in the taxation of those natives?

Mr. George Hall: I regret that it is not possible to provide precise figures in answer to the Question; but a memorandum has recently been prepared in the Colonial Office on the general economic situation of the West African Dependencies, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy for him to study.

Mr. Thorne: If the statement is not too long, will the hon. Member circulate it in the Official Report?

Mr. Hall: The memorandum is a very long one. If the hon. Member would care to have a copy, I will see that he gets one.

GIBRALTAR (WAR CONTRIBUTION).

Major Carver: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial contribution towards the national effort has been made by the people of Gibraltar?

Mr. George Hall: I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House that a sum of £30,007 has been raised by

voluntary subscription in Gibraltar as a contribution to war expenses. Hon. Members will agree that this contribution affords striking evidence of the loyalty of a Colony whose population numbers less than 20,000 persons. The Governor has been asked to convey to the people of the Colony the warm appreciation of His Majesty's Government of their generous gift and of the spirit which prompted it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CARRIERS'LICENCES (SERVICE VOLUNTEERS).

Commander Sir Archibald South by: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many small holders of B carriers' licences, who have volunteered to join the Army, and have therefore had to surrender their licences, are now being told that they are not necessarily entitled to the return of their licences when the war is over; and whether, in view of the widespread desire that, so far as possible, the civilian livelihood of men who joined the Forces should be preserved for them, he will take steps to guarantee to those B licence holders the right to obtain a B licence when they return to civilian life?

The Minister of Transport (Sir John Reith): As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, carriers' licences are issued by independent statutory licensing authorities, who are bound by the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and neither they nor the Ministry can go beyond them. It is obviously desirable, however, that every consideration should be given to holders of carriers' licences serving with His Majesty's Forces, and this question has been discussed with the licensing authorities. They are keeping records of all vehicles deleted from licence during the war, with a view to giving sympathetic consideration to applications at the end of the war for reinstatement.

Sir A. Southby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the holders of B licences who voluntarily surrendered their licences to join up require something more than a promise of sympathetic consideration? They expect treatment corresponding to the provision which this House has made for men who have joined up being reinstated in their jobs after the war.

Sir J. Reith: I desired to convey that it is not a question of what should be done, but of what can be done under the existing Act. Every consideration will be given, and we have little doubt that the end which my hon. and gallant Friend wishes will, in fact, be achieved.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend consider the propriety of amending the Act, so that these people may be sure of getting their licences back?

Sir J. Reith: I am quite prepared to consider anything.

LONDON—DURHAM RAILWAY SERVICE.

Mr. Ritson: asked the Minister of Transport (1) when he expects to restore the passenger trains between London and Durham that he suspended in order to run coal trains;
(2) why trains from King's Cross do not stop at Durham to set down passengers and thus prevent the long waiting at Darlington station?

19 and 20. Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Transport (1) why passengers from King's Cross to Durham should have to change trains at Darlington and wait, as on Friday, 3rd May, one and a half hours for another train also on its way to Scotland;
(2) whether he is aware that the passenger train service between London and Durham is organised in a manner most inconvenient for passengers; and what steps he is taking to improve this service as soon as possible?

Sir J. Reith: The present time-table provides three through trains daily between London and Durham in both directions, and there is an additional through train from London to Durham on Fridays. Two other daily services each way involve a change at York or Darlington. This is the best that can be provided under present conditions and, while the inconvenience occasioned by reduced services is regretted, hon. Members will appreciate the considerations which made the reduction necessary. I cannot say when the heavy demands for the transport of coal and other essentials will be sufficiently reduced to permit improvements to be made.

Mr. Ritson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the boats in the docks

are awaiting coal now, and is it necessary that it should be brought by rail? With regard to Question No. 17, is he aware that the last train for any soldier going on leave from the south of London is at one o'clock from here, and that when he gets to Darlington he has to wait an hour and a half for a connection to Durham; and is he also aware that many men, miners who work hard and are anxious to get home, have to wait for two hours for an omnibus and cannot get home at all before 5·35?

Sir J. Reith: I should like to assure the hon. Member, with regard to the first point, that the Ministry of Transport is in touch with the Department of Mines and the Ministry of Shipping about the transport of coal generally. With regard to the second point, I will ask the Railway Executive Committee to look into it.

Mr. Batey: The Minister said a moment or two ago that he was prepared to consider anything, and will he consider this matter, for the reason that on some of the trains the passengers have to get out at Darlington and wait an hour; and that these trains go to Scotland and passengers have to get into another Scottish train which stops at Darlington, which shows that it is totally unnecessary for passengers to change trains at Darlington?

ROAD ACCIDENTS (LONDON TRANSPORT BOARD).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport how many were killed and how many injured by London Transport Board motor-omnibuses, trolley-buses and tram-cars, respectively, during the five months ended 31st January, 1940, compared with the five months ended 31st January, 1939?

Sir J. Reith: As the answer includes many figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the Minister say whether there has been a decrease or an increase between the two periods?

Sir J. Reith: The fatal accidents have increased—162 as against 60; and non-fatal accidents have decreased—8,286 as against 9,023.

Following is the answer:

I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that the numbers of fatal accidents and of non-fatal accidents involving personal injury in which

Vehicles concerned.
Fatal accidents.
Non-fatal accidents involving personal injury.


1938–39 period.
1939–40 period.
1938–39 Period.
1939–40 Period.


Trolley vehicles
…
19
47
1,910
2,219


Tramcars
…
…
7
20
2,021
1,690


Central omnibuses
…
27
89
4,538
3,883


Coaches
…
…
5
—
200
40


Country omnibuses
…
2
6
354
454





60
162
9,023
8,286

The Board point out, in regard to these figures, that coaches were not running in September or October, 1939, and ran subsequently only on three routes up to the end of January, 1940.

At the inquests on the 162 fatal accidents which occurred during the five months ended January, 1940, the verdict was "Accidental Death" in 148 cases, "Death by Misadventure" in 11 cases, "Death from Natural Causes" in two cases and "Suicide" in one case. In 94 of the fatal accidents the Coroner specifically exonerated the drivers concerned from all blame, and in only one case was there any criticism of the driver.

RAILWAY COAL WAGONS.

22. Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Transport whether the difficulties in regard to the use of railway coal wagons have now been overcome; and what steps have been taken to increase the number of wagons available?

Sir J. Reith: The railways are now experiencing no difficulty in providing sufficient empty wagons to meet colliery requirements. In view of this and of many other urgent demands it is not at present thought necessary to add to the number available.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any provision at all is being made for the increased output of coal which is now being authorised; and is he satisfied that the existing supply of wagons will meet the increased production of coal when it becomes available?

their road vehicles were concerned during the periods from 27th August, 1938, to 28th January, 1939, and from 26th August, 1939, to 27th January, 1940, were respectively as follow:

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir. I think I can assure the hon. Member that everything is being done that is possible now to guard against trouble next winter. In fact the trouble which was occasioned before was not due to the shortage of wagons. There is not likely to be any trouble due to that cause, and we will try to prevent it happening from any cause.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask my right hon. Friend, as there are now sufficient wagons available, to see to it that Southampton may be supplied with the quantity of coal that it wants?

RAILWAY FARES.

14. Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the rail fare from Manor House to Leicester Square has recently been raised from 5d. to 6d. and that from Bow Road to Westminster from 5d. to 5½d.; and will he say why in one case the increase is 10 per cent. and in the other case 20 per cent.?

Sir J. Reith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my predecessor gave on 8th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). As was then pointed out, the increase authorised by the Minister's Order was 10 per cent., subject to certain fractions rules, the operation of which was explained. General rules are almost bound to produce some anomalies, and the present case is one.
The rules provide that ordinary fares are to be adjusted to the nearest 1d. Under ½d. is dropped; ½d. and over is


charged as 1d. With workmen's fares, under ¼d. is dropped; ¼d. and less than ¾d. is charged as ½d.; ¾d. and over is charged as 1d. The latter rule has not been applied to local workmen's fares on London Transport railways (other than the Metropolitan Railway), because they have charged ordinary single fare for the double journey, and it was desired not to disturb this arrangement. Thus the ordinary single fare and the workmen's return fare were increased from 5d. to 6d. between Manor House and Leicester Square, both local stations of the Board. The ordinary single fare from Bow Road to Westminster was also increased from 5d. to 6d. Bow Road, however, is a joint station with the London Midland and Scottish Railway, so that the special rule was applied to the workmen's return fare, which was increased from 5d. to 5½d.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these anomalies to which he has referred always operate to the disadvantage of the railway traveller? Why cannot they occasionally operate to the disadvantage of the railway company? Will he look into it?

Sir J. Reith: In this particular case the anomaly has operated to the benefit of workmen and workmen's fares. If it were not for Bow Street being partly an L.M.S. Station, the fare would have been 6d. and not 5½d. This is one anomaly in a very complicated question.

Mr. McEntee: Does not the Minister know that the Bow Street he has just mentioned is a police station and not a railway station?

PRODUCER-GAS-DRIVEN ROAD VEHICLES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement indicating what progress has been made in the conversion of road vehicles to the use of producer-gas?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): While both the number of producer-gas-driven vehicles on the road and the number of units in process of manufacture are steadily increasing, I regret that precise figures are not at present available. I can, however, say that over 190 goods vehicles are now running on producer-gas, as well as a number of

public service vehicles, and there is good reason to believe that nearly 10 times that number of producer-gas units are now in course of manufacture.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CHARGES).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can yet state the amounts of the charges for electricity by authorities in the London area as asked for by the hon. Member for Stretford, and also now issue his promised statement?

Sir J. Reith: The statement in preparation by the Electricity Commissioners will show for all company and municipal supply authorities (including those in the London area) who have increased charges for electricity since the outbreak of war, the present charges, and what the increases are. The statement will, I hope, be ready next week.
When forwarding a copy to my hon. Friend, I will also send a return showing, for all London electricity authorities, the charges in force on 1st January, 1937; and I will have prepared a supplementary statement showing the present charges for London authorities not covered by the first statement.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish that statement in the Official Report as other Members would like to see it also?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTAGE STAMP BOOKS.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Postmaster-General, whether he will consider including in future issues of books of postage stamps a proportion of stamps of 2½d. denomination?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The preparation of books containing some 2½d. stamps has been put in hand. I hope that supplies will be available next month.

WORKERS WAGES.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state if wage increases have been awarded to the poorer-paid postal workers to meet the increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Morrison: A war bonus to meet the rise in the cost of living is being granted to the lower paid grades of civil servants, including postal workers, with effect as from the 1st February, 1940, in accordance with an agreement recently concluded on the National Whitley Council.

Mr. G. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the award includes office workers?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I think it covers all grades of civil servants, but if it is a point of detail and the hon. Member will give me notice, I will tell him of the application of the agreement.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate in the Official Report details of the increases so that we may know what they are?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; I will consider that.

Mr. John Wilmot: Will the Minister consider at some time introducing the necessary legislation to enable him to give some bonus to the lower pensioners of the Post Office?

Mr. Morrison: That is another matter.

POSTAL RATES.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Postmaster-General whether the volume of business of his Department has been adversely affected by the recent increases in postal rates; and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Yes, Sir: but present indications are that the reduction in postal business is likely to prove to be rather less than was allowed for in the Budget estimate of postal revenue.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister give some indication as to whether the volume has been decreased irrespective of the increased revenue that comes from increased rates?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have indicated that the volume has decreased.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MEAT CONTROL.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what position in his organisation is held

by Mr. William Forsyth, St. Boswell's, Dingwall; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Forsyth was discharged from the food control in the last war, if he is satisfied that this appointment commands the confidence of the producers and consumers in the area?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): Mr. Forsyth is one of the three members of the Certifying Authorities for sheep at the collecting centres at Tain and Dingwall. He was appointed on the recommendation of the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders' Associations. After making local inquiries, I am satisfied that Mr. Forsyth is regarded generally as an expert judge of sheep and well qualified to act in this capacity on a sheep-grading panel.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether the north-eastern area meat controller has resigned his position as prospective Conservative candidate for the Howdenshire Parliamentary Division;
(2) the exact terms and conditions of the appointment of the north-eastern area meat controller; and the duties and salary of the appointed person before his appointment was made?

Mr. Boothby: The area meat and livestock officer recently appointed for the north-eastern area has resigned his position as prospective Conservative candidate for the Howdenshire Division. His appointment as area meat and livestock officer carries a salary of £1,000, is subject to one month's notice on either side and is subject also to the general conditions governing the appointments of temporary officers on the staff of the Ministry. I have no knowledge of his emoluments prior to his present appointment, for which he was selected from a list of candidates supplied by the Central Register of the Ministry of Labour.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can my hon. Friend say whether the meat controller's resignation of his position as Conservative candidate was made obligatory, and whether it was made having regard to the fact that two right hon. Members of this House, namely, the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace) are at the moment holding positions which put them


under the authority of Ministers, and whether that fact was taken into account in asking this gentleman to resign from the position of prospective Conservative candidate?

Mr. Boothby: I do not think that there was any question of obligation. The gentleman in question voluntarily tendered his resignation.

ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he can now make some statement regarding the supply of straight-run feeding-stuffs throughout the country?

Mr. Boothby: My Noble Friend hopes to make an Order at an early date that will limit each manufacturer's production of compounds and mixed feeding-stuffs to a prescribed percentage of his pre-war production, and a further Order that will prohibit, except by special licence, the sale of any compound or mixed feeding-stuff other than those prescribed in the Order, for which maximum prices will be fixed.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that the matter is very urgent and that his predecessor has done careful and valuable work, and perhaps he will follow up the valuable work that he was engaged upon?

Mr. Boothby: My hon. Friend may rest assured that I shall follow up any valuable work.

WEST INDIES SUGAR.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider, with the Minister of Shipping, the releasing of tonnage for the importation from the West Indies of an increased amount of raw sugar to this country in order that the necessary supplies of refined sugar for preserving home-grown fruits and wild fruits will be available, keeping in view the available refining plant available at Greenock and elsewhere?

Mr. Boothby: Arrangements have long since been made for the purchase and transport of the whole of the raw sugar supplies available from the British West Indies, and the question of releasing additional tonnage for imports from that source does not arise.

Mr. Gibson: Do the arrangements made take into account the increased plantings of sugar cane in the West Indies?

Mr. Boothby: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

HOUSE REFUSE (SALVAGE).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that many thousands of tons of saleable refuse are being dumped or burnt annually by local authorities or their contractors which, if reclaimed, would provide valuable and essential material for industry and agriculture, besides affording substantial relief to the ratepayers; and whether he will appoint a committee to investigate and report upon a plan for the immediate establishment of a public utility company to undertake the work of reclaiming, processing, and disposal of saleable refuse on a national scale?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am aware that many thousands of tons of house refuse are dumped or incinerated annually by local authorities or their contractors. Over 900local authorities now have salvage schemes in operation for the recovery of useful materials from the refuse or for the interception of these materials before being placed with the refuse. Much more can be done in this direction using the existing machinery of the local authorities and without recourse to capital expenditure or the utilisation of large tonnages of steel for the erection of new refuse disposal plants. A plan for a public utility company to undertake the work on a national scale has been submitted to the Ministry of Supply, and I am considering the advisability of appointing a committee to investigate and report upon it. I am also reviewing carefully the whole position in regard to salvage.

Miss Rathbone: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many local authorities have not yet adopted schemes and whether steps are being taken to bring them into line with more active authorities?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say the number of local authorities who have not done so, but the number co-operating in some way or another is 870.With regard to the


second part of the Supplementary Question, I have that matter under active consideration.

Mr. Davidson: Could my right hon. Friend indicate when we may have a definite decision about the result of the review now proceeding?

Mr. Morrison: I hope it will be quite soon.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities have been collecting material for the last six weeks and cannot sell it?

Mr. Morrison: I will see that that point is taken into consideration.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the problem is not so much the salvage of valuable materials which are readily saleable, but the fact that the lost fertility of English soil is largely due to animal and vegetable refuse having been dumped outside farms instead of being returned to the soil as was done in previous generations?

Mr. Morrison: I quite appreciate the importance of that point.

Mr. Gibson: Arising out of the original answer, can the Minister say how many of these 900 local authorities are in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say without notice.

PONTARDAWE (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he has taken in the Pontardawe Rural District Council area to ascertain from the employers, employés and other interested people and local authorities, the causes of the stoppages in the various industries, which have thrown a large number of skilled workmen out of employment?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the unemployment existing in this /area and am advised that it is due to a variety of causes, some of which are outside my responsibility. The Ministry of Supply is doing its best to keep the local steel-producing and steel-finishing industries going, so far as raw materials can be made available.

Sir W. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last 12

months expert men in the skilled industry in this area have been unemployed, and will he look into it?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that there is a serious position and I am exceedingly sorry about it. There are, however, complications in the matter, some of which are outside my control, but I am very sympathetic with the point raised and I will do everything I can to see that the matter is put right as far as possible.

Sir W. Jenkins: Is the Minister prepared to send representatives to make inquiries on the spot? We have had collieries reopened recently as the result of investigations on the spot by representatives of the Mines Department and Lord Portal's Committee.

Mr. Morrison: I rather think we have information gathered on the spot, but I will certainly look into the matter and see whether further information is desirable.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last war many of these plants were adapted for the production of munition supplies and that there was an abundant supply? May I ask whether he will make a special investigation into the question of these idleplants in West Wales to see if they can be converted for munitions?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Will there be any difficulty in getting the raw material wanted?

Mr. Morrison: There are certain problems connected with raw materials, which fact limits one's activities to some extent, but the solution of these problems is being actively pursued.

TIMBER (BREWERS' CASKS).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will take steps to secure economy in the use of timber in brewers' casks by the adoption of modern methods in Governmental and other breweries using out-of-date bushing for casks, involving large and unnecessary imports of oak wood?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Timber Control has for some time been actively pursuing measures of economy in the use of wood in the various branches of the brewing


industry, and the question of saving wood by adopting newer methods of bushing is being closely considered.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister take care to inquire into the position so far as Government breweries are concerned, where it is alleged that waste is taking place as the result of our out-of-date practices?

Mr. Morrison: I will. Sir.

PAPER.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has yet conferred with the proprietors of newspapers regarding the proposal of the hon. Member for Greenock that each page of every news paper should display in leaded type the words "Preserve this paper for re-manufacture," or similar words?

Mr. H. Morrison: My predecessor discussed this proposal with the newspaper proprietors and the latter have informed me that they are preparing a scheme for the recovery of old newspapers and intend to give appropriate publicity to the scheme in their papers. The point will be kept in mind in connection with the consideration which I am giving to salvage arrangements generally.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to what is the proprietors' scheme?

Mr. Morrison: There is a salvage scheme in existence, and I think that is well known to the House. As I have said, I am giving consideration to its improvement.

MUNITIONS (RAILWAY WORKSHOPS).

Mr. Viant: (for Mr. Charleton): asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that numbers of skilled workmen employed by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company at Wolverton works are being drafted to various parts of the country because there is no work for them at Wolverton; and whether these workshops could be used to produce munitions during the present crisis?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that some of the men normally employed at Wolverton have been transferred temporarily to other work in the railway company's service. As regards the production of war supplies, all practicable use is being and will be made of these and other railway shops subject to the

necessity for maintaining the railways to the essential standard of efficiency.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the utilisation of railway shops throughout the country for the purposes of increasing our output of munitions, bearing in mind that we are producing less now than we did in the last war?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

CONTROL BOARD (APPOINTMENT OF FINANCIAL ADVISER).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to case No. T. 1193/6/38, Inland Revenue, involving charges of fraud against the Crown; and, as the person concerned has been given a post as financial adviser to one of the control boards, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I understand that the file of papers mentioned in the Question relates to a case in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who are the appropriate authority, are engaged in investigating certain statements that have been made by a third party regarding the affairs of a certain individual. In the circumstances I can see no ground for the suggestion contained in the second part of the Question.

Mr. McEntee: Is the Financial Secretary aware that indisputable evidence has been given in abundance, which is well known to the Department; and in view of that is he going to take some action to stop this scandal?

Captain Crookshank: I have explained that investigation is now being made by the appropriate authority to find out whether in fact there is a scandal. While that investigation is going on it is impossible for me to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. McEntee: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in this case investigation has been going on since June, 1938? Can we expect a decision this century?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot answer for the rest of the century, but the hon. Member can take it from me that the investigation is going on as quickly as possible at this moment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Hyndley to attend to be examined, as a Witness, before the Sub-Committee on Transport Services, appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir Geoffrey Ellis.]

EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Northallerton Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital; to confer further powers upon that company; and for other purposes."[Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].

Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EMERGENCY).

3.25 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move:
That the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the Business of this day's Sitting:
A Bill to extend the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939,may without notice be presented by a Minister of the Crown and forthwith considered and passed through all its stages on the same day, and the requirements of Standing Orders No. 64 and 68 and of the practice of the House relating to the imposition of charges upon the people shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of any provisions of the Bill or of any Amendments thereto moved by a Minister of the Crown which authorise expenditure or the imposition of any such charge.
Immediately after the Bill to which this Order applies has been read a Second time it shall be considered in Committee of the Whole House."—(King's Recommendation signified.)
I have to inform the House that the present situation is so critical that the Government are compelled to seek special powers from the House by a Bill to be passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament to-day. The situation is grave. Every hon. Member is fully aware of that; and also of the issues which are at stake. A great battle is now proceeding. Our men at sea, on land and in the air, are fighting with splendid courage, devotion and skill, in company with the freedom-loving people who areour Allies. The result of that battle we cannot know, but it must be clear to all that the next few weeks will be critical. Our ruthless enemy, who is restrained by no considerations of international law, of justice or humanity, is throwing everything into the scale to force a decision. We are resolved that he shall not succeed. The Government are convinced that now is the time when we must mobilise to the full the whole resources of this country. We must throw all our weight into the struggle. Every private interest must give way to the urgent needs of the community. We cannot know what the next few weeks or even days may bring forth,

but whatever may come we shall meet it as the British people in the past have met dangers and overcome them.
But it is necessary that the Government should be given complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer and workman, man or woman, and all property. It is these powers for which I am asking the House this afternoon. I do not ask for them in any spirit of panic; there is no need for panic. I am asking that in this emergency we should be given the requisite powers that may be needed. In order to pass the Bill through all its stages, it is necessary to move this procedure Motion without notice, and I am asking the House to acquiesce in this procedure in view of the great peril in which the nation stands to-day. The Motion is in precisely the same form as that moved on 24th August last year when the original Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill was passed through all its stages. The Bill is available for hon. Members in the Vote Office now.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his explanation. We are setting a precedent, but this is not the time for a lengthy discussion. It is a time for action and for showing that the House of Commons can be a completely efficient instrument in the conduct of war. I have only to say that we shall give the Bill all facilities.

3.29 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: These are drastic powers for which the Government are asking, and the justification for them is that the country is in danger. I do not suppose in the history of our country, not even in 1914, 1915 and 1916, has the danger been more real. Nothing will give the country greater confidence than the knowledge that the Government are prepared to take action rapidly, and even against all constitutional practices and traditions. The Government must take responsibility, and I am glad they are prepared to do so. Parliament, of course, must be diligent in examining—the House has a great duty in that respect—the way in which these powers are used. When the occasion arises, Parliament must be vigilant to see that


these powers are not unfairly used. [Hon. Members: "Agreed."] The House of Commons has its functions to perform. It does not help the Government if Members do not express their views. These are drastic powers. I reiterate that Members will have the responsibility of examining the use of those powers in practice and protecting individuals; but I am satisfied—

Mr. Charles Brown: On a point of Order. Is not the business before the House a procedure Motion? The Second Reading of the Bill has not been moved.

Mr. Speaker: A procedure Motion is before the House.

Sir P. Harris: The seriousness of the situation justifies these great powers, but nevertheless, hon. Members still have their responsibilities, and when these powers are put into operation, those responsibilities will be vastly increased. As far as hon. Members on this bench are concerned, we will do everything we can to facilitate the progress of the Bill through all its stages.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I do not propose to oppose this Motion on procedure. I agree absolutely that the House ought to be able to function speedily in critical circumstances, but I reserve my right to speak adequately on the Bill, which has just been placed in our hands. At first glance I cannot see what there is in it that adds to the emergency powers already given to the Government, but, as I have said, I reserve my right to speak further on the Bill.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As regards procedure, I understand that it will be on the same lines as on the last occasion when we discussed such matters. At the moment we are not discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope the House will understand the importance of one statement that was made by the Lord Privy Seal. I understand the tragic situation of the people of this country, but in connection with this Bill it is essential that the power of the working class should remain unaffected. The hatred of the working class for Nazi-ism is deep-rooted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I shall want to raise some matters on the Second Reading of the Bill. The enmity of the other side is very recent and shallow and to those of us who are concerned about the welfare of the working classes, it is important that nothing be done to interfere with their liberty of organisation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the Business of this day's Sitting:
A Bill to extend the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, may without notice be presented by a Minister of the Crown and forthwith considered and passed through all its stages on the same day, and the requirements of Standing Orders Nos. 64 and 68 and of the practice of the House relating to the imposition of charges upon the people shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of any provisions of the Bill or of any Amendments thereto moved by a Minister of the Crown which authorise expenditure or the imposition of any such charge.
Immediately after the Bill to which this Order applies has been read a Second time, it shall be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL

"to extend the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939," presented, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attlee, and Mr. Greenwood; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 49.]

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I believe that at this critical time the vast majority of the people of this country will willingly give their services to the country, and will do all that is asked of them. We introduce this Bill not because we have any doubt of the willingness of the people, but because in a difficult emergency like this there must be the necessary power in the Government. Let me explain shortly what the Bill does. The operative part of the Bill is an extension of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and in Clause 1 the powers conferred by that Act are to
include power by Order-in-Council to make such Defence Regulations making provision for


requiring persons to place themselves, their services, and their property at the disposal of His Majesty, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
Sub-section (2) gives power to amend the legislation passed since the beginning of the war. The third important point is the extension of the original Act for another year. The Act expires in August of this year. No one can tell quite what conditions may be in August of this year. Therefore, it is best to extend the Act now. This is an enabling Bill under which Regulations can be made. I want to give an indication as to the sort of Regulations and the kind of control that may have to be exercised. Let me say that I do not want anyone to jump to the conclusion that all of a sudden everybody is going to be ordered to do something different from what he is doing now. The essential thing in an emergency is that everybody should continue at his job until he is ordered to do otherwise; but what is proposed is that there should be control over persons and over property.

Mr. Kirkwood: How much over property?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait a moment. The Minister of Labour will be given power to direct any person to perform any services required of him. That does not necessarily mean services in munitions or factories. It does not apply only to workmen. It applies to everybody. No one can tell what these days may bring forth, or who may be required to dig defences or do anything else, but everybody alike must be under this control. The Minister will be able to prescribe the terms of remuneration, the hours of labour, and conditions of service. Remuneration will be on the basis of the remuneration for the job. If an engineer is asked to do engineering work, he will get engineer's pay. If somebody else is asked to do a particular job, he will get the pay of that job. If a professional man is asked to do his professional work, he will get his professional pay. If he is asked to do manual work he will get a manual worker's pay. The general principle will be that of remuneration for the job.
With regard to conditions and pay, it is proposed that we should carry out, wherever they exist, industrial agreements which have been arrived at and wherever such agreements have not been arrived at, observe the rates normally paid by good employers. If there are cases, in which people are asked to shift from one district to another, there should be payment to deal with things of that kind. There is power to inspect premises and to require employers to produce their books. The object is to mobilise the effective resources of the nation for whatever tasks may come upon us now. I said at the beginning that it was essential that this should be done but not because people are unwilling. I am convinced that the bulk of the work will be done with the good will of all and with the co-operation of organised labour.
Let me deal with a few points about control over property. Some establishments will be controlled altogether right away. Others may be controlled later. They will, in effect, be working on Government account. Wages and profits will be under Government control. The Excess Profits Tax will be at the rate of 100 per cent. There will be no profit out of the national emergency. Other establishments may be ordered to carry on and they may perhaps be ordered to carry on at a loss, but there must be power to carry on essential services and if people are put in a position where they are making a loss, they must have adequate remuneration in order to do their job effectively. The essential thing is that over a wide field—how wide one cannot say at the moment—industry will be carried on for the community in fact, and not for private profit. There may be cases in which firms will have to close down and there may be destruction of property here and there. One cannot tell that will happen. There will be difficult questions of compensation. There will have to be full reconsideration of compensation but in an emergency, these things cannot be worked out precisely and, meanwhile, there will have to be interim compensation.
I have spoken of businesses, but it is not only industrial businesses in the ordinary sense that will be, or may be, under control. It depends on what the Regulations will be. There will have to be control of the finance of the country and the banks. It may be done, centrally; it may be, if conditions require it,


that it will have to be done through regional commissioners and financial advisers, but at the moment I cannot give more than an indication of the kind of action which may have to be taken. The point arises: Under whose orders are these things to be done? They are to be done under the orders of the Government. The order will be given by the competent authority and the competent authority in each case will be the Minister concerned with that particular national activity—the Minister of Labour, for instance, dealing with labour matters, and the Minister of Agriculture with agricultural matters. If conditions enforce it, control will have to be exercised through the regional commissioners, but, broadly speaking, we are taking control in a time of emergency, so that in the national interest we may utilise all our resources for the common weal.
Now let me take one part of the scheme which has already been worked out in detail. It is essential in this crisis that we should produce to the full all our essential munitions, and the Minister of Labour has been given the responsibility of supplying the labour required for the programmes of the various Departments. He proposes to set up at once a Production Council consisting of representatives of the chief Government Departments concerned with munition supplies—the Admiralty, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Mines. That Production Council will be presided over by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is proposed to set up a Director of Labour Supply with full-time assistants, drawn from trade unions and employers. There will be local organisations based on area boards.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will there be no Office of Works in it?

Mr. Attlee: No, but there will be full control of building operations. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am afraid I have had to deal with this matter at very short notice. It is essential that all building operations should be properly controlled, brought together and co-ordinated. At all important centres, labour supply committees will be set up to organise local self-help for meeting difficulties in the labour supply. It is

proposed that firms should be grouped to secure the best utilisation of labour and to prevent waste. In certain instances there will be compulsory notification through the Employment Exchanges of all men who are "stood off" or on short time. Those firms engaged in munitions will be brought under control and will become controlled establishments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour proposes to set on foot a bold and comprehensive scheme of training. Training facilities are available under the Ministry of Labour and in the technical schools and so forth. It is proposed, too, where non-federated firms are standing out and not observing agreements, that they shall observe agreements.
The essential thing at this time is to see that there is no waste of the skilled labour which is available and that there is the utmost co-operation between all those who are working for the common end. My right hon. Friend intends to work in the closest co-operation with trade unions and employers' organisations. It may be that cases will arise in which, under this stress, agreements will be made to set aside, for the time being, customs in industry that have previously been agreed between employers and employés. It is essential that everybody who is engaged in this great effort should be satisfied that the rights which he has had shall remain alive and in being and it is proposed, therefore, that there should be an addition to the Fair Wages Clause whereby employers who do not at the end of this war restore any customs or conditions which have been set aside for the war, will be ineligible to come on the list of Government contractors. [Hon. Members: "Permanently?"] Certainly, until they comply, but I will deal with that point later. I cannot now give more than a broad outline. I have tried to give the House a picture of an immediate piece of work. To show how immediate it is, I may say that it is proposed that the Munitions Board should meet to-night to get on with the job.
I have only been able to indicate some lines on which action will be taken. What other action will be taken must depend on how events move, but I cannot end without again stressing what I am quite sure is in the mind of everybody. At this time everything for which we stand is in jeopardy—our political rights, our rights of conscience, our industrial


rights—and everything will go if we do not defeat the enemy. I do not believe it is necessary to make a long appeal to the people of our country. I am quite certain that everybody knows what is at stake, and that while these powers are necessary the real force behind us to-day is the will and determination of a free people.

Mr. MacLaren: We have heard about labour, wages, trade union agreements and all the rest of it, but the most essential of all things, the thing which is in question and jeopardy, is the land, and that has not been mentioned. I want to know if we are taking powers for the entire control of the land of this country?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is, of course, right in stressing the importance of the land. I say "all property, real and personal," and land is an essential part of property.

Mr. Davidson: The Lord Privy Seal referred to the fact that firms who did not restore what we may call agreements come to between employers and employés will be kept off the list after the war so far as Government work is concerned. May I ask if full cognisance has been taken of the fact that many firms who may be engaged on war work now may, after the war, be engaged on a different type of work and may not desire to be placed on the list?

Mr. Attlee: I quite realise that such cases may happen, but perhaps my hon. Friend will have a talk with the Minister of Labour on particular points. I am giving a general principle. The general principle is that there should be a definite sanction imposed that they should not take advantage of a war situation to break down conditions established for many years, and this is one of the means of enforcing that.

Mr. Logan: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal a question?

Mr. Lees-Smith: rose—

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask something germane to the Question.

Mr. Speaker: It is better that we should have speeches made than questions put on a point of Order.

Mr. Logan: I was not making a speech. I wanted to ask a question pertinent to the subject which we were discussing then.

Mr. Speaker: I often find that speeches and questions run very much into one another.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. The Government have asked the House to make a big concession on the matter of procedure and the House has granted it, but one or two of us are anxious to ask a few questions to elucidate the statement which has been made. We do not want to make speeches, but would it not be more convenient if we could have one or two questions answered now rather than by having several long speeches?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Before making any observations upon the Bill I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether these numerous Regulations which are to be put into Orders will be laid and, if so, what the procedure will be? Perhaps we might have a reply to that before the end of the Debate, because if there are any questions of details to be raised they might be conveniently raised then.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, they will be laid, and, of course, they can be annulled by a Prayer. It is, of course, as the hon. Member says, a fact that the whole meat of it comes in the particular Orders. This is merely an enabling Bill.

Mr. Maxton: When will they be laid?

Mr. Attlee: As soon as they are made.

Mr. Lees-Smith: It seems to me impossible for us to discuss this in detail now, and if any Member wishes to do so it seems to me that his opportunity will come when the Orders are laid. One cannot help recognising in the speech of the Lord Privy Seal that he has in mind certain contingencies of a character which has never yet faced this country, and broadly speaking he wishes to ensure that this country shall not be taken by surprise like some countries already have been. I would, therefore, say that, apart from the discussions upon the Orders, if hon. Members find that in the working of this


Bill there are points which ought to be raised I am glad to know that the ordinary procedure of this House will protect us. We shall have Ministers in front of us from day to day with whom we can raise particular points. One of the great advantages of our procedure is that we can with confidence give Ministers powers, especially if we have confidence in them, and we should give these powers, because our procedure enables us to raise the issue of how they are being utilised any day when the House is sitting.

Mr. Maxton: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) that everything which matters will be in the Regulations and not in this Measure. This merely confers a very very wide power on the Government to make Regulations. I imagine that it does not add much to the emergency powers granted in last August, and I believe that all the things outlined by the Lord Privy Seal could have been done under that legislation. I notice that the Lord Privy Seal shakes his head, and I accept his greater knowledge on the subject. He only made a short general statement on which one can say nothing. I do not object to land being nationalised and banks being nationalised, and I do not object to property of all descriptions being taken over for the service of the State. I could have wished, however, that it could have been in rather calmer days and adopted more deliberately than to-day.
As I listened to the Lord Privy Seal I noted that he was very precise about what was to be done in the seizure of labour. He was very definite about that—how they were to be moved anywhere at any time—but he was very vague and general about what was going to be done to property. I am not going to take the responsibility of dividing this House on the matter. I divided the House on the last vote on emergency powers. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) smiling, but I do not wish to have a Division in which the Opposition is ludicrously small. My hostility to this Bill in principle is as strong as it was previously, but it is only when we see the regulations that we shall know just whether the inroads that are being made into established liberties are necessary, or whether the general circumstances of a

time in which people tend to get nervy are being utilised to take away liberties which it is not necessary, even in these days, to take away. As I say, I will not oppose the Measure, but I will scrutinise the regulations very closely when they come before the House.

Dr. Little (Down): I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether this Bill is to apply to Northern Ireland?

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I hope I never trespass unduly on the time and patience of the House, and what I feel moved to say now I can say in a sentence or two. I believe that the introduction of this Bill and the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal will be received with a feeling of great relief by vast multitudes of the people of this country, whose abiding anxiety in recent weeks has been as to how, through their property or their services, they could make their full contribution towards the conduct of the war. In a recent speech, the French Prime Minister said that if we wished to conquer the enemy, we must first learn to conquer ourselves, and I believe that this instrument will be one of the things that will enable us to do that. I will say nothing in regard to the details of the Bill, because on the Orders themselves we shall have an opportunity of doing that, but I am sure there is nobody in this House to-day who does not realise that if we are to preserve our liberties eventually and for the future, we must make a substantial surrender of them at the present time. That, I believe, is the temper in which this Bill will be received and the temper in which I believe it will be worked.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that if we pass this Bill and circumstances should arise in which it is impossible for Parliament to meet, the Government are satisfied that they will then have all the powers which they require to deal with any emergency that might then arise without being hampered by the absence of legislation? I think we ought to have that assurance before we pass this Bill.

4.4 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I think there is complete unanimity that when the Government ask for further


powers the House will cheerfully grant them, but we want to have some assurance that those powers will always be wisely exercised. The Deputy-Leader of the House stated that the competent authority would be a Minister. That does not mean that it will be the personal act of a Minister, but that a Minister will act through his servant. Therefore, the power to direct a workman to go from this factory to that factory will not be a personal order by a Minister, but it will be an order given by a servant of a Minister, and many of those orders may be unwise orders. The requisitioning power in regard to property, virtually speaking, already exists.
Four days ago a competent authority took 160 public service vehicles, which were used by the military with such indiscretion and so unnecessarily that at this moment 100of them are under repair in the garage of the public service undertaking, and it has been necessary to call upon mechanics belonging to the military to carry through the essential repairs. I mention that as a minor example of the necessity of making sure that those who in fact are the competent authority do not wildly do things which are unwise, merely on the justification that there is a war on. The fact that there is a war on is no reason for doing anything foolish, and there are many people at this moment who, without full thought, will sometimes take advantage of the great powers which are rightly conferred upon them to do things which, in fact, are contrary to the interests of the State. I think it is of the greatest importance that when the regulations are drawn the instructions to those who will exercise the practical duties of the competent authority are of such a character that mistakes of the kind with which I am familiar, and many other Members also to a great extent are familiar, shall be repeated to the smallest possible degree.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to take exception to this Bill. I do not see how it is possible to suggest that by taking away the liberties of the people of this country you are helping to forward any cause of liberty. The working class of this country has had no say whatever in the policy that has led to the critical and desperate situation in which we find ourselves. The ruling class of

this country is responsible for what this country is facing and now seeks to save itself at the expense of the mass of the people. This Bill does not represent, as an hon. Member opposite said, "an effort to conquer ourselves"; it represents a deliberate effort on the part of the ruling class of this country to conquer the working class. I can remember when I and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and others met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the last war. We put proposals before him that would give the workers in the factories and the shop stewards and the trade unions a measure of control over conditions that operated in the factories. The right hon. Gentleman told us that anything of that character would represent a revolution and that you could not carry through a revolution in the midst of a war. What did he mean by that? He meant that if there was any attempt to cut into the power of the ruling class of this country, the ruling class would forget the war and would proceed to protect its own interests.
So we face a situation in which the ruling class is determined to hold on to its power and to bring the power of the independent organised working class to an end. Yet the one thing that is important in this country at the present time is a strong, virile, independent working-class movement. That is the one thing that is more essential than anything else for saving the people. When we talk about this country, it is the people of whom we are talking, and the masses of the people are those who are going to be fettered and imprisoned under this Bill. The country is not a geographical expression; it is the masses of the people. The working class will get absolutely nothing from this Bill. It is true that there may be interference here and there with the rights of property, and there may be certain control of organisations for the time being, but the Bill does not allow, and there will be no intention of allowing, for doing away with the rights of private property.
If there was anything serious of that kind in the minds of hon. Members opposite, there would be a complete requisitioning of all wealth and property, and everything would be taken over, but what do we find? What did you have yesterday in this House? The ex-Prime


Minister, whose policy more than anything else has brought us to this terrible pass, came in, and all the profiteering Members opposite cheered him, deliberately demonstrating for the ex-Prime Minister, and when the new Prime Minister, who is supposed to be winning the war, came in, they were completely silent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's argument has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: With all this talk going on about national unity and everything being wanted for the common good, it is clear that those on the other side who are interested in private property and finance have their eye on the ex-Prime Minister and those associated with him. It is finance that they are concerned with, more than anything else, as was demonstrated yesterday.

Mr. Logan: What view are you taking? Are you speaking for this country, or for whom are you speaking?

Mr. Gallacher: I am concerned about this country, deeply concerned about it, and always have been, but I am concerned for the masses of the people of this country, and I am against the small gang of the ruling class who have brought us face to face with this disaster. When I speak about the country I am concerned with the masses of the people, because there is no such thing as a country if you do not take the people into consideration. The masses of the people have had no say whatever in the policy that has led to this disaster, and it is the masses of the people who are now getting their liberties taken away by this Bill, while the property of the ruling class remains intact. The main principle of the rights of property on the part of a small group, whose profits are going up all the time as a consequence of the war, is adequately protected. You can see in the financial papers how their profits are going up, and at the same time the liberties of the many are to be sacrificed. Therefore, I am opposed to this Bill.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Logan: If ever there was an occasion when the nation should listen to the House of Commons, it is to-day. The liberties of the people can be enjoyed by the people only if there is unity in the country, but it is foreign to me to hear an alien voice raised in this House that has a country in every

part of the world except the country in which he lives. I think that at this time we not only have to protect ourselves by the laws that we make, but that this Bill should enunciate views which are subservient to the voice of the people of the land. In the case of leprosy and other diseases, we are very careful to see that we have proper protection against them, but unlicensed speech in this House is doing great injury. Therefore, I think that for the common good it is about time that a voice like that of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was silenced as regards the question of the emergency powers that we ought to exercise. I have listened for a long time to a quartette in this House that professes to speak on behalf of the people of the land in regard to laws that are being passed, and I have lived all my life among the poor and have seen my sons and those of my home having to go out and fight to protect the very people who claim the licence to say and do whatever they like in the British House of Commons.
If unity is to be brought about, and this nation is to be saved, that unity must come in common action, and it is because of that that I do not intend to be a cipher in the House of Commons. We are about to pass laws which, in my humble opinion, are absolutely essential—not only that Stalin might have views expressed but that we at a later date may be able to give expression to our views and bring about a better state in the affairs of our land. This is an honourable institution, and it can only be made more honourable by Members of the House recognising that this land fought for and won its liberties and defending them at all costs. We will give to any Government, provided it is a legitimate Government working in the interest of one and all, every power it can exercise for the common welfare of the people.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I always think that the extreme tolerance which this House invariably shows to the amazing statements and strictures made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) provides the best answer to the speeches he makes. I rise only to put a question to the Lord Privy Seal, which I do not ask him necessarily to answer now, in relation to the penalties that will be imposed on owners of property and on


persons who may show some recalcitrance in carrying out directions. I share the view of every Member that this Bill will be welcomed in every quarter of the country. There will, however, be very small minorities who for various reasons may prove recalcitrant in carrying out directions, and I would like an assurance that the penalties will be proportionate to their profits and the magnitude of their offence. I understand that in certain other Defence Regulations there are standard penalties for a whole range of offences. The scale of requisition of persons and property which will take place under this Bill may not be adequately covered by the penalties which are already in force, and I hope that some attention will be given to them.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: When the Lord Privy Seal was making his statement, I asked how much the Bill would affect private property. I waited patiently to see whether private property and the banking interests were to be affected to the same extent as the working class, and as far as I was able to gauge the situation there is a distinct difference. The working class, as I under stand the Lord Privy Seal, are to be tied hand and foot, and private property is not. I will defeat that distinction to the best of my ability. I do not happen to represent either Russia, or Rome, or Jerusalem—

Mr. Logan: Or reason.

Mr. Kirkwood: I represent the working class of my country, and my countrymen will have something to say about this Bill if it works as I understood from the Lord Privy Seal that it will work. The landed interests and the big financial interests are not to be affected to the same extent as the working class. My class are to be conscripted; the Government are going to conscript the life of the worker. They will not do that as far as I can hinder it unless they conscript wealth also. That is supposed to be the programme of the Socialist movement as I have always understood it. I heard in the last war all that the Lord Privy Seal stated to-day. We had then the same promises about what would happen after the war. In the War Cabinet then were two of the most powerful men ever produced by our party

in George N. Barnes and Arthur Henderson. They gave every promise, to engineers in particular, that all trade rights would be guaranteed, but in 1920 the wages of highly skilled engineers were less than those of scavengers in the streets of London. That is what happened to us, and that is what will happen again unless the Labour party prevent it. At that time there were not so many Socialists in the House of Commons as there are to-day. There were not so many men sent here by the workers. There were not so many representatives of the miners, whose conditions to-day are hellish. Every time an accident has occurred in the mines, I have asked in the House whether everything is being done that science and engineering can devise to prevent these tragedies, and I am not satisfied that all is being done that might be done.
Unless the workers are to be treated under this Bill on an equal footing with the great, the rich and the all-powerful, I shall do all I can to get my class to resist. Hon. Members should not run away with the idea that because certain Labour and trade union leaders have gone over to the Government side of the House the working-class movement is dead. You may do what you like, but that movement cannot be killed; however it is put down, it will rise again. Even the slaves who were taken from the wilds of Africa as savages and put into the cotton fields of Carolina revolted against their slavery. So will our people revolt. It is no use the Lord Privy Seal and his partners thinking that the working-class movement are just going to fall under the provisions of this Bill without protest, unless all interests are treated alike. The working class of this country have a country to defend, and they are capable of defending it. All that they have is in the country. They have not wealth invested across the seas. The whole of their lives, everything that they have, their wives and families, are all here. Everything for which they have a regard is here, and they will defend it. Down the ages we have had to defend every right that we have against the ruling class. Everything that we have has had to be fought for against the ruling class with which my colleagues and my leaders have now allied themselves. Now is their opportunity to state to the ruling class, "We will defend the country with everything that we have, we will put everything at the disposal of the country,


provided the country is ours and all that is in it, instead of belonging to the ruling class as it has done in the past."

4.27 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I will be brief because I do not think the House is in any mood for speech-making. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had better concentrate his attention on how to fight Hitler rather than on how to fight the ruling class. The Lord Privy Seal stated the intention of the Government in respect to wage agreements and so forth. Does he mean that the existing wage rates, trade agreements and industrial agreements will be frozen as they are now, or that the existing machinery for regulating wage rates and so forth will continue? It seems to me that some Members took the Lord Privy Seal's remarks in the former sense and that we were being given a gentleman's agreement on the part of the Government to keep up existing wage rates or if there was any change to give something higher. If this Bill with its exceptional and dangerous powers, which we recognise as necessary, has to go on for some time, there may be such changes in the financial position of the country that a modification of industrial arrangements and scales both up and down may be necessary. Women are coming in as substitutes for men in the engineering trade. If vast numbers of women have to be employed and the Government pledge themselves to pay the rates recognised for men as the rate for the job, that may be right or wrong, but it is a big undertaking to which to commit ourselves without any discussion. May we therefore have a little more explanation of the industrial side of this Measure?

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that each Minister would issue Orders as he felt them to be necessary. I take it, however, that they will be issued only on a decision by the Cabinet and that it will not be left to each Minister to take it upon himself to issue them. If it is necessary to nationalise the mines or take over the land for the welfare of the State and the prosecution of the war, I take it that there will be no hesitation in putting full powers into operation. We must be assured that the changes that are necessary to win the war will apply not only to the working-

class. Equal sacrifice should be called for from all sections in the country, and if necessary wealthy people should be called upon to pay their share like everybody else.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: Did I understand the Lord Privy Seal to say that the Minister of Labour, with his additional powers for increasing the mobilsisation of labour generally, will seek powers to restore a provision which was in operation before the war but which has been suspended since the outbreak of the war? We still have large numbers of unemployed, and some of them may be residing in places where there is no present or future hope of employment. It may be necessary to transfer them to places some distance from their present homes. Is the Minister of Labour going to restore the power to assist the workers and their families to move to the new place of employment, because that is a power which has been suspended since the outbreak of the war?

4.32 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I have one or two suggestions to put to the Lord Privy Seal, entirely on my own behalf. I cannot speak as a representative of the working classes in the same way as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Most of those who vote for him are workers, and I do not think one can claim to represent the workers in that sense unless one has been through the life of a working man, which I have not. I should like to make a suggestion on behalf of a small number of people who are in positions roughly corresponding to my own. I am rather looking forward to the day when something of this kind will happen: that the Lord Privy Seal or his representative will come to my house, or to houses of similar size, and say, "You have here some very attractive pictures by Joshua Reynolds"—or whoever it may be—"We are taking those pictures and are selling them in America to buy aeroplanes." When I ask what compensation is to be given for those pictures, I am looking forward to receiving the two answers "The means test and Keynes' Plan. Let us see how much you have to live upon after we have taken these pictures, and as to the rest let there be deferred compensation." I merely offer that suggestion to the Lord


Privy Seal, because, I submit, when that kind of thing begins to happen in this country in relation to property, it will be very much easier to solve some of the difficulties which were forecast by my hon. Friends above the Gangway. That is the kind of thing, only on a very small scale, which I mean by conscription of wealth, and unless the Government are prepared to act in that way we shall run into trouble.

Mr. Logan: Of what value would porcelain or beautiful pictures be in a time like this?

Sir R. Acland: They could be very valuable indeed, because if we sold them in America, we should have purchasing power with which to buy aeroplanes. We shall run out of American dollars if this is to be a prolonged struggle.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the questions which have been addressed to me. The answer to the hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little) is that this Measure does apply to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) asked whether under this Bill the Government would have all the powers they want if we are invaded. The answer is "Yes."

Mr. Lewis: I meant if Parliament could not be called together.

Mr. Attlee: We shall have the powers. With regard to the questions as to the control of property, I do not think the hon. Member who put them can really have listened to what I said. The power taken to control property is just as strenuous as that to control persons. I was asked whether the banks would be controlled, and I gave that as a specific instance—that the banks would be controlled and would operate under Government orders. They will be as much under orders as anybody working in a factory and in the same way as any other business. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) stressed, very rightly, the position of labour. Labour has declared its view that this war must be won, and I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member himself will do his full part. He knows as well as I do that we can get the biggest effort from this country only if the trade unions play

their full part and undertake their responsibilities, and that is exactly what is being done under the scheme of the Ministry of Labour, as I indicated.

Mr. Kirkwood: I have a question to put on that point. This is a very serious matter. It may be that some hon. Members do not know just how serious it is, but I do. I want to be perfectly clear about this, because it will be put to me immediately by the engineers: Are we to understand, seeing that labour is to be conscripted—because that is how it appears to me—that wealth in this country is to be conscripted also? I want the Minister to give me a straight answer, such as I am in the habit of giving.

Mr. Attlee: My short answer is that we are taking power to deal with all persons and all property.

Mr. Kirkwood: But can I not get a straighter answer than that? I want a straight answer if the Minister can give it. Believe me, it is with the best intentions that I put this point. It is perfectly true that the leaders of the trade-union movement, and all that, are on the opposite benches, but I am dealing with the men, and it is the men we have to get. Am I in a position to say that if labour is conscripted, so will wealth be conscripted? Can the Minister say that, speaking for the Government?

Sir William Davison: I can give an answer to the hon. Member. I have received an intimation from my bank that certain property which I have in America has been taken by the Government and that certain payments will be made in due course. If that is not conscription of wealth—

Mr. Gallacher: They should take the whole lot and give you nothing.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not want another Member's reply.

Mr. Attlee: I have said that we are taking power over all persons and all property. That does not mean to say that from to-morrow everybody will be given orders to do this or that work, but there is power to do it. In the same way, it does not mean to say that from to-morrow every form of wealth will be taken, but there is power to take property and to control persons, and that


power will be exercised wherever it is necessary in the interests of the safety of the country. With regard to the point put by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), there is no suggestion of any "freezing" of industrial agreements. The whole industrial system is alive and going on all the time, and there is no suggestion that from this time on it will be suddenly frozen. There is a general principle with regard to agreements made in industry, that advantage should not be taken of the war to take away rights that ought to be restored at the end of the war. As to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), general policy must necessarily be co-ordinated, either by action between Ministers or through the Cabinet. The competent authority will be the Minister. Within the range of his activities, so far as they do not impinge on the activities of another Minister, he will be the person to give orders.

Mr. Tinker: Suppose the Minister of Labour should decide to direct certain sections of labour in a particular direction. That might arouse controversy in the trade union ranks. It may not always be the present Minister of Labour; there may be a Minister not sympathetic to labour. Would his orders be subject to Cabinet review, or would he be responsible himself?

Mr. Attlee: In any case where there was a difference it would necessarily be settled either by the Cabinet or through one of the Members of it, but no Minister would attempt to enforce powers that ran directly contrary to the functions of another Minister. It is essential that there should be co-operation in all these things. The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) put a good point. I cannot say exactly what the previous practice was, but if in the national interest workers are required to go from one place to another, there must be adequate payment to compensate them for the cost of travelling and all that kind of thing. I could not say precisely what was done before.

Mr. Mainwaring: Before the war, if an unemployed worker was being placed in a job 50 or 100 miles away from his home, he and his family were moved at the expense of the Ministry of Labour, but that system has been suspended since the

outbreak of war. I think that, in all reasonableness, that condition ought to be restored, because otherwise an unemployed man would be under very great hardship.

Mr. Attlee: I think I had better bring that point to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I was not considering the question of the unemployed. If there was a surplus of key-men in an industry in one place and it was desired to bring them to another centre, then, in all fairness, they should be compensated. As to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), there is power to take his Joshua Reynolds, if we thought it in the national interest to do so. If he has one and wants that done, I am sure the Government will be glad of it.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the point about penalties?

Mr. Attlee: It is true that there are to be penalties. It will be the endeavour to make the penalties apply proportionately to everybody—I could not say exactly how, but the idea is that there should be no distinction between people at this time. Whether they be rich or poor, or whatever they are, they should all be willing to perform service and to give up their property, and those who are recalcitrant come into the same category.

Mr. Thorne: What means are you going to take now, in view of this Bill, to prevent the moneyed class and the propertied class from getting rid of their property now and buying securities in America?

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and considered in Committee.

[Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of powers under 2 &amp; 3 Geo. 6. c. 62.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.44 p.m.

Sir Robert Young: It is plain to me what this Clause does. I understand it to mean that the services and the property of all persons can be taken when required. But from the discussion


in the House this afternoon it is obvious that the Clause as it stands will be misunderstood by some people in the country. It is regrettable that it should have been worded in such a way that the word "all" could not have been used. I can imagine people going to the country and saying that the Bill will be utilised only in one direction, although it is intended to cover all classes. If anything can be done by means of an assurance from the Minister, I shall be very pleased indeed.

Mr. Attlee: The Committee will see that "persons" means all persons, and it does give the power which the hon. Member desires. I should like to make it quite plain that "persons" means all persons.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Committee should have more assurances from the Lord Privy Seal as to how the Bill will be administered. No one can point a finger at the trade union movement with regard to the part that it has played during the past eight months, in the engineering industry in particular, where the unions at the very beginning came to an agreement which was known as the Relaxation of Customs Agreement. Anybody in touch with the heavy and general engineering industries will understand that that in itself was a revolution in working-class conditions. Up till now, that spirit has not been reciprocated. If anyone doubts that statement, I can produce correspondence from executives of a number of trade unions as concrete evidence. Clause 1 gives powers for
making provision for requiring persons to place themselves….at the disposal of His Majesty.
Our position is clear. If I were in the workshop, as I was in the last war, I should be called upon to play a representative part on behalf of the men. They are bound to be concerned when they know that this Bill is going through; we are speaking on their behalf. We are entitled to have assurances as to how the Bill will be administered. I was speaking in my division the other night, and it was clear that the whole of the audience supported the decision of the Bournemouth Conference and were in agreement with the line that we were taking. After the meeting, several men came up to me with questions. I do not intend to repeat all those questions, but I will give one

example. A man who was going to work produced his pay packet, and on it was written "£2 7s."That man had worked overtime. He has seven children, and he desires a transfer to another job in order that he might have more wages. Nevertheless, because he was already in a job, and in spite of the fact that he has seven children, he has been prevented from going to another job. I want to ask whether the Clause will be interpreted in such a way as to prevent men of that kind from going to other jobs. To a great extent, these days, we must sink our individuality and our own individual interests. Our men and women have done so during the past eight months, but they find that that spirit is not evident in other directions. I should like to have an assurance that that kind of thing will not be encouraged, and that if men wish to be transferred to other jobs, provided they are serving the State in a better way as a result of the transfer, they shall be entitled to that transfer. As the matter is being administered, the employers' interests are considered, rather than the interests of the State as a whole.
The next point arises out of our experience in the last war. We know that skilled engineers are being discharged from aircraft factories. This week-end highly skilled engineers are being discharged from a certain factory, which I could name if anyone doubted my statement. This is an indication of the lack of organisation in the industry. While our men are giving of their best and have agreed to the relaxation of customs, such incidents are causing irritation inside the workshop. Men say: "What is the use of our agreeing to relax our customs, to dilution, to train dilutees and to put forward our maximum effort if the position is being undermined by lack of organisation, because certain monopoly interests are being considered rather than the interests of the State as a whole?" Therefore, we want assurances on that point.
Surely discharges of skilled men ought to cease. We are in a serious state. The only difference between me and some of my hon. Friends is that we realise that the war did not start eight months ago but seven years ago. Our movement can look the world in the eyes because of our attitude during the last seven years. In spite of that, men are being discharged and are, in some cases, being offered employment many miles away from their own


areas. Our men are prepared to accept these transfers because they realise what is at stake, but we say that, if this thing is to be carried through, the men are entitled to some subsistence allowance if they are transferred at the instance of the State. I remember that the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Munitions, realised the danger in a matter of this kind, and agreed to a system of subsistence allowances in order that wives and children might be maintained in at least as good conditions as they were in prior to transfer. Speaking on behalf of the persons whom we represent, and who are giving the maximum amount of production by using the maximum of energy, in order that the nation's resources might be organised and the best possible result be obtained, we are entitled to receive the assurances for which we ask before we agree to the Clause.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: Our executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are responsible for 300,000 workers. I put it to the President and the General Secretary of that union, in the presence of some of my colleagues—the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) was present—whether they had agreed to forgo our trade-union rights to dilution of labour and to the extension of overtime. They said, "Yes." I then asked—and this is where the workers come in—"What did you get, in return? What concessions have you got in return?" What was their answer? That they had got no concessions. Some hon. Members on this side of the House seem to be a wee bit annoyed at me to-day to hear me moved in the manner I am, but I went through the mill, as a result of standing up in defence of the men in the last war. I was deported and imprisoned, not for letting my country down and not for being a conscientious objector, because I never was, and am not to-day, a conscientious objector. I will fight for the rights of the working class, and that is what every Member on these benches was sent to do. We should defend those rights, which are ours to defend and are not ours to give away.
I want to try again to see whether the Lord Privy Seal will give me a definite answer that the wealth of this country is to be conscripted if labour and the manpower of the country are to be conscripted. I would like a definite answer, because

upon that answer depends the part which I play. This part may not be very much, but you can take it from me that, throughout the length and breadth of this country and not only among the engineers, all the Socialist propaganda cannot all have been of no avail. We have done our utmost to implant into our class that that is their way out. If my boy is conscripted as well as other boys, and they have to offer their lives, it is not asking too much, surely, as a Socialist who has propagated these ideas from one end of the country to the other, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a straight answer to the question, "Is wealth to be conscripted as well as human life?"

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The hon. Member who has just spoken has put in a plea for the working class. I would remind him that I stand in this House as a representative to the extent of 86 per cent. of the working class in my division, and that so long as I am in this House I shall do what I can to protect the interests of the working class. On one point I should like to have an explanation of Clause 1, at the point where it reads:
making provision for requiring persons to place themselves…at the disposal of His Majesty.
Does that include refugees? The reason I ask the question is that my company, which is responsible for a large quantity of machine tools in this country, has made application to the Ministry of Labour for 250 refugees of the skilled classes. If these men were granted to my company, would the Bill apply to them so long as they were being paid the proper trade union rates of wages? On the question of companies under contract with the Government on a cost-plus-10 per cent. basis, I suggest that this system has encouraged the increase in the cost of the camps and other services being performed on behalf of the Government. Because they are not limited to a contract price, these people are paying high wages quite unnecessarily and are, in consequence, attracting people who are getting full trade union rates away from other companies to the companies where they can be in that favourable position. I should like to know whether this Bill will protect companies which are paying legitimate and full trade union rates of wages against that very pernicious policy.

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie: There is one question I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal. Although I am not a trade unionist, I represent a large industrial area. The point on which I desire some enlightenment is the question when a man is asked to change his job. A man may be employed in the building trade, he may be a transport worker or a municipal worker, and there may be need for such men on the land. The Lord Privy Seal said that when a man was conscripted for a particular job, he had to get the wages which were paid in that particular job. Supposing a transport worker, a municipal worker, an engineer or a railwayman was told to work on the land, are his wages to be brought down to the level of the low-paid agricultural worker? We have heard to-day of somebody being appointed as a commissioner; it may be that men in business will be asked to take up other jobs. In some cases they may get an increase. Are we to continue with these inequalities for services rendered?
I do not see that there is any difference between conscripting people for work and conscripting people to fight. What I want to know is whether the rule will be that a man has to come down to the lower standard. We know that the reason for the scarcity of men on the land is that wages have not been sufficiently attractive. If a man can be appointed as a Commissioner and can receive £2,000 or £3,000 a year, and if another man who has been earning £3 or £4 a week is to receive 30s. on the land, this matter should be looked into.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: The point which has just been raised is a point which I was going to raise myself. I represent an industry that is now so slack that there is a very high percentage of unemployment in it. I am extremely glad to see that the Government are taking the precautions that they are, and I should have no hesitation in giving my vote, if a vote were necessary, to enable the Government to have these powers. I represent a working-class constituency, a constituency over which we have had control for many years, and they all know that we are all Socialists who control it. I claim to be quite as good a Socialist as other people. I do not expect a social revolution to-morrow from this Bill, neither do I expect it at any time

during the present war. When the working class want that social revolution of which we hear so much, we shall get it, but the working class have not expressed their desire to get it. When they express a desire to get it, we shall not have a Government of 25 per cent. such as we now have, with 75 per cent. non-Socialists, but we shall have a Government of 75 per cent. and 25 per cent. non-Socialists. I am loking forward to that time, but I do not expect it from this Bill.
What I am expecting from the Bill is something which arises from the statement which was made by the Lord Privy Seal, a statement which I think is very serious. In speaking of the building trade, I am also speaking of others who, like the building trade, over a long period of years, by effort and sacrifice, have attained a standard of life which is one which we desire to maintain. If this Bill is passed without some better conditions than those which the Lord Privy Seal has indicated so far, I can see the possibility of a great danger to that standard of life. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give us some guarantee in this respect. Carpenters, joiners, bricklayers or plasterers, who cannot possibly get work in their own industry, will be very glad indeed to be transferred to some other industry where they can use their labour and earn their living instead of getting it in other ways, but they will not be so glad if, as the last speaker said, they are to be transferred from their own industry with its high standard to the agricultural industry with its low standard. When I say the agricultural industry, this may also apply to the ordinary navvy. Men may be sent to do general labourers' work or other forms of work where the standard of living is very much below the standard which they have earned by sacrifice and effort. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will give serious consideration to this point.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) gave an instance which could be multiplied by tens of thousands. There are people in my constituency who take home £2 5s., or two guineas, or even less than that, and they are working long hours. In that same constituency there are scores of people in my own industry who are out of work. In factories where the standard is below £2 a week men may be required, and it may easily be that a


man in the industry of which I spoke, earning £3 10s. or £3 15s., is sent into an industry in the town in which he lives where the standard wage is about £2. I hope there will be a minimum and that the minimum will be a living one. It is not a living minimum for a man with a family to take home £2 or £2 5s. to-day. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect a man who with his fellows has obtained by effort and sacrifice the standard of living which he has, to be transferred to an industry with a standard very little over half that in his own industry. It is also unreasonable to expect a man in a low-paid industry to-day to continue to work under existing conditions and with existing prices. I hope that very serious consideration will be given to the fixing of a minimum wage below which no employer will be allowed to pay his workmen.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Logan: There are one or two points to which I desire to draw the attention of the Lord Privy Seal. I am aware of conditions existing in that industry which have been so well described to-day by those who are engaged in it and who are more accustomed to seeing the dirty overalls in that industry. The dilution of labour, so far as engineering is concerned, was diabolic in the last war. The reduction in the value of man-power in that industry compared with other labour which came along was one of the scandals at that particular time. I remember the time when a skilled artisan, who had served his apprenticeship of five or seven years after going to a secondary school, got 39s. a week in what was considered to be the premier industry in the land, and found that the man sweeping the street was getting 62s. 6d. That cannot be allowed to go on in future. I am fully aware, and so must many of my colleagues be aware, that in many parts of this country there are skilled artisans who are not engaged in their former kind of employment; they are engaged in other jobs. I am considering the question of the dilution of labour. I do not belong to an organised body of labour in which one is able to command any wage in the trade union world, but I am one of those who understand the difficulty in regard to the dilution of labour. I am convinced that the trade unions in this country would be better satisfied to see their own members coming back rather than having

a dilution of labour and seeing unskilled people being brought in. I am anxious to know this, as it concerns thousands of artisans in our great cities, who have served apprenticeships or who are skilled workers in a particular industry, and who are now engaged in other occupations. Of course, they have to make application, because the Bill distinctly states:
…making provisions for requiring persons to place themselves…
I am talking of service to the State, by which men who are fully qualified can place their services at the disposal of the State for the period of the war and can give their services in an occupation in which they are qualified. I want to know what provisions have been made and what guarantee could be entered into so that employers of labour could dispose of men's services for the period of the war in jobs for which the men are qualified. There may not appear to be very much in this point, but with my knowledge of the docks of Liverpool, and of the workshops, I can tell the Minister that there are thousands of fully skilled men who have served apprenticeships and who are capable of taking any job in a factory, who would be willing to give their services to the State providing that there was a safeguarding Clause inserted in the Bill. When talking about taking land and persons a Clause should be inserted into the Bill by which a man can be taken from a job, if he makes application and offers his services to the State, with a guarantee that that man will be re-established again in that former employment without any pecuniary loss. The State would be able to get skilled men. It is no use any Minister or any hon. Member thinking that the question of the protection of the home after our difficulties are over is a matter which the workmen of this country must not consider. Every family is dependent upon the father and the mother making provision for that home. If that is realised by the Minister, he may be able to guard against the difficulty and bring in a Clause to see that that safety is given.
A colleague sitting on the Liberal benches spoke of Gainsboroughs, Dresden and porcelains and such things—which I have handled in my time—but I am convinced that if one could get a market for such articles, they would be of little value. A pair of Dresden vases or a Gainsborough picture would not be as valuable as two


skilled engineers going into the workshop to provide us with guns. Therefore, when considering the material value which we have in hand, I ask the Minister to take into consideration the question of this valuable labour which would give to the State men who would be of adequate value and who would create no difficulties with the trade union organisations.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: The questions that have been addressed to me are almost all on rather detailed matters. Clearly, one cannot answer them straight off across the Floor of the House. They are matters that should be taken up with the Minister of Labour, through the appropriate organisations. I know that the Minister of Labour wants to have close co-operation not only with trade-union secretaries, but with trade unions right through. That is the best way to get increased production. Here we are taking an enabling power. It is not possible to put into the Bill all the detailed administration of the Ministry of Labour, or even the details of regulations. Take, for instance, the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). It is impossible to lay down that in an emergency every person shall get the same money as he was getting before the emergency, but we are taking power to provide that a man getting £10,000 a year may have to work for the State, like everybody else, and at the rate for the job. When people are talking of service to the State, you do not expect them to receive large profits, and, at the same time, you do not expect them to be living on a miserable wage. That is the general principle. The details are a matter for adjustment. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) asked me a question about refugees. I am afraid that I did not catch the point. Anyway, it does not arise under this Clause. That is a matter to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, as this is of immense importance, whether the word "persons" in line 21 of this Clause includes refugees?

Mr. Attlee: It might include refugees from some of those countries which have been overrun. It obviously would not be applied to American visitors here. How-

ever, I think that is not a very wide question. I note the other points that were made, with regard to the checking of the jobs, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and other of my hon. Friends. They are all matters of detailed administration. On the Clause in general, I cannot emphasise too strongly that it applies to every kind of job and to every person. I cannot say that from to-morrow all properties are taken over, but I do say that the Government are taking power to take every kind of property.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when the Regulations, which everybody agrees are the real crux of the matter, will be laid on the Table or otherwise made available to hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot say at the moment when it will be, but it will be as soon as possible.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that powers would be taken to compel small contractors to merge in order that their plant might be made available. It is 12 months since somebody in this House suggested that course. Throughout the country there are small firms which are, in fact, amalgamated in districts, and which want to help. I have a letter from the secretary of one of those firms asking when they will be allowed to do something in the interests of the country. Will the information which is in the different Departments be utilised in order to save time and to bring these plants which are still available—and which, although still in the hands of the separate owners, have in fact been amalgamated—into production?

5.21 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The Lord Privy Seal said that in the event of manufacturers and others not restoring to the workers customs which had been varied or abrogated, such firms would not be entitled to further Government orders. That seems to me a rather remarkable provision. I think the House generally understood that the specific pledges given by the Minister of Labour with regard to the variation of customs was virtually an undertaking that these customs and usages


would be restored after the war. On that basis, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, with its thousands of members, agreed to the variation of existing usages. What new situation has arisen which necessitates this rather vague pledge being now given to labour?

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), I would say that the point that he raised would be dealt with by the area boards. With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), he must remember that some of these undertakings have been given by the employers to the employés, and the Government wish to see them implemented.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TREACHERY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read-a Second time."
The main provision in this Bill is contained in Clause 1, which provides that the extreme penalty of death may be exacted in certain grave cases of espionage and sabotage. Under this Clause, it is an offence for any person, with intent to help the enemy, to do or attempt or conspire with any other person to do
any act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty, or to endanger life…
In each case, be it noted, the act must have been done with intent to help the enemy. It must, as the Title of the Bill implies, have been an act of treachery. Acts containing this element of treachery would, of course, be treason. They would involve, in the language of the Treason Acts, adhering to the King's enemies,

giving them aid and comfort. It is probably safe to say that, so far as concerns the acts themselves, nothing is made an offence by Clause 1 of this Bill which would not already be an offence under the Treason Acts. Under the ordinary law, therefore, the type of action specified in this Bill is already an offence, and an offence for which very heavy penalties are provided by the Treason Acts.
Why then, it may be asked, is this Bill necessary? During the last war, power was taken, under the Defence of the Realm Acts passed in 1914 and 1915, to enable, not only courts-martial, but also civil courts sitting with a jury, to impose the extreme penalty of death on persons convicted of offences against any of the Defence of the Realm Regulations if it was proved that the offences had been committed with the intention of assisting the enemy. In the course of the last war 10 persons—all, I think, aliens—were dealt with by court-martial under the Regulations made in accordance with these provisions. I cannot find any record, however, of the death penalty having been imposed under the Regulations by a civil court. Hon. Members will recollect that when proceedings were taken against Roger Casement he was put on trial for high treason before a civil court, and was sentenced to death under the Treason Acts.
When the Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill was introduced in Parliament at the outbreak of this war, it contained no provision for the death penalty to be imposed for acts done with intent to assist the enemy, as it was thought at that time that the most serious types of offence for which the death penalty would be appropriate could best be dealt with under the Treason Acts. As a result, however, of further consideration, the conclusion has been reached that the Treason Acts, although, as I have said, they probably cover all the actions made punishable by Clause 1 of the Bill, cannot safely be relied upon as extending to all the classes of persons by whom such offences might be committed. The Treason Acts apply to all British subjects, wherever they may be, and also—by reason of a doctrine known as the doctrine of local allegiance—to aliens resident within His Majesty's jurisdiction. I am advised, however, that this doctrine of local allegiance could not reasonably be held to apply to aliens who had come to this country in a clandestine way for a


hostile purpose intending, whether by espionage or by committing acts of sabotage, to undermine our system of national defence. It is obviously desirable that all classes of aliens in this country, whether they are normally resident here or have come here solely for a hostile purpose, should be made equally liable to the death penalty, if they commit offences of this kind.
This then is the first reason why fresh legislation is thought necessary. It is not the only reason. The second reason is one of procedure. The procedure prescribed by the Treason Acts dates back to the fourteenth century; and in some respects it is out of harmony with the conditions in which we find ourselves at the present time. It seems to the Government desirable therefore that, if persons commit such grave acts of treachery as are contemplated in Clause 1 of this Bill, they should be tried in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the courts, without the special forms and dignities of a treason trial.
In the third place, legislation is necessary because it has been thought desirable to make provision enabling enemy aliens to be tried in suitable cases by court-martial. Section 1, Sub-section (5) of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act provides that Defence Regulations shall not authorise the trial by courts-martial of persons who are not subject to the Naval Discipline Act, to military law or to the Air Force Act. It was the intention of Parliament, when that Act was passed, that all civilians charged with offences against Defence Regulations should be tried by civil courts. For the specially serious type of offence with which this Bill deals, it is thought appropriate that there should be power to direct, in suitable cases, that enemy aliens—and this provision is confined to enemy aliens—should be tried by courts-martial. In the type of case to which I have already referred, where an enemy alien has come to this country in a clandestine way for a hostile purpose, it might well be appropriate that, if he were apprehended, he should be dealt with summarily by court-martial rather than be committed for trial in a civil court. I should make it clear, however, that any British subject or neutral alien charged with an offence under this Bill will retain his right to trial by jury.
At a time like this I do not think it is necessary for me to bring forward arguments to justify the proposition that persons found guilty of grave acts of treachery towards the State should suffer the extreme penalty of death. There are, I know, hon. Members in this House who are opposed in principle to capital punishment, and in ordinary times they would no doubt feel bound to resist any proposal which they regarded as an extension of the limits within which capital punishment may be imposed. I hope I have shown, by what I have said already, that in as much as the treacherous actions specified in Clause 1 of the Bill are for the most part already offences under the law relating to treason, this Bill does not involve any serious extension of the offences for which the death penalty may be imposed. But in any event I would venture to suggest, with the greatest respect for the opinions of those to whom I have referred, that the circumstances of to-day are far more compelling than any arguments about capital punishment. This is a moment, if ever there was one, for swift and drastic action; and if any justification is needed for the proposals in Clause 1 of this Bill the grim realities of our present situation provide, in themselves, sufficient justification—without any arguments of mine.

Mr. Garro Jones: There is one very important point with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt, but if he thinks that the present moment is not an appropriate one I will defer the question. It is the question of enemy aliens in some cases perhaps arriving in uniform by novel methods as in the last few days, and will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished my speech. I need not, I think, describe the Clauses of the Bill in detail. I have already dealt with the provision for the death penalty in Clause 1, and with the provision in Clause 2 (1) (b) for the trial of enemy aliens by court martial. I ought perhaps to draw the attention of the House to Clause 2 (1) (c), which provides that a person convicted by a civil court and sentenced to death for an offence under the Bill may, if he was a member of an armed force at the time when the offence was committed, be


handed over to the appropriate military authority in order that the sentence of death may be carried out by shooting. Without such a provision, a sentence of death imposed by a civil court would have to be carried out by hanging; and the special provision to which I have just referred has been included because it is thought that in certain cases, where the offender happened to be a soldier, it would be more appropriate that the sentence should be carried out by the method normally used when a soldier is sentenced to death.
Before I sit down, I should like to make one final point. There may be some hon. Members who, thinking of the situation with which we should be faced if this country were invaded by the enemy, may feel that even the procedure prescribed in this Bill—and here I am dealing with the point just raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones)—is too slow and formal and that there should be means even more summary of dealing with persons who commit these acts of treachery. I want, therefore, to make it clear that if this country were invaded by the enemy and the ordinary processes of law ceased, of necessity, to function in the area of active military operations, there would be available under common law or otherwise powers for dealing effectively with the acts of treachery covered by this Bill. The Measure which this House is being asked to pass to-day is not designed to make provision for such a situation.
With this explanation, I commend the Bill to the House. I believe it to be a necessary Measure, I feel sure that it will strengthen the hands of the authorities in dealing with those grave acts of treachery at which it aims, and I am confident that it will command support in all quarters of the House.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask one question? The Bill provides for no penalty excepting the death penalty. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what would happen if the court were convinced of the guilt of a prisoner where the offence was not so serious and there might be hesitation to apply the death penalty and where another penalty was deserved? Would that mean that the prisoner would be acquitted as there would be no means of dealing with him with regard to the possibility of a lesser penalty?

Sir J. Anderson: I would first of all, in reply to the hon. Lady, point out that Clause 1 of the Bill is not cast in terms designed to cover all acts of treachery. An act of treachery can be made the subject of a charge under Clause 1 but the charge must be of a grievous description. It must be an act done with intent to help the enemy and it must be
designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty's Forces, or to endanger life.
The last words are put in with reference to the case of sabotage, to make it quite clear that the Clause extends to grievous cases of sabotage. That is the first point. Next I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the Defence Regulations as they now stand there is provision—which it is not proposed to abrogate—in Regulations 2A and 2B for dealing with acts done with intent to assist the enemy and with acts of sabotage. Thirdly, Clause 3 of the Bill provides for what is called the joinder of charges and the framing of charges against a person who is thought to have been guilty of such offences as those we are now discussing. It will be possible to combine with a charge under this Bill a charge under the Regulations, and while it will be proper that the court, if it finds a charge under this Bill proved, to impose the penalty provided for by this Bill, it will be open to the court, if it comes to the conclusion that only a lesser case of treachery contemplated by the Regulations—Regulation 2A or Regulation 2B—has been brought home to the prisoner, to impose the penalty provided under those Regulations. The maximum penalty under Regulation 2A is imprisonment up to penal servitude for life, and, I think, also a fine, and under Regulation 2B—the sabotage provision—penal servitude for any term not exceeding 14 years or a fine not exceeding £500 or both such penal servitude and such fine. I therefore think I may say that the point which the hon. Lady had in mind is fully met.

Mr. Charles Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the difference between treachery defined in this Bill and treason, and why this Bill is necessary?

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the explanation that I gave.

Mr. Brown: I did not hear the first part of it.

Sir J. Anderson: May I repeat that the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill is substantially the same as the scope of the Treason Acts, but the Treason Acts might not be applicable to persons who are not normally resident within the King's jurisdiction; and moreover the Treason Acts are antiquated, excessively cumbrous and invested with a dignity and ceremonial that seems to us wholly inappropriate to the sort of case with which we are dealing here.

Mr. Silverman: Would not those persons who might not be within the scope of the present treason law and the illustration which the right hon. Gentleman has given in any case be spies and subject to the death penalty in any event? If an enemy alien arrives in this country not in uniform for a hostile purpose and carries it out, is there any difficulty under the present law in dealing with him?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, there is a difficulty certainly and that is why we have introduced this Bill. We provided for such cases in the last war under the Defence of the Realm Regulations in very much the same way as we are proposing to do here, except that there were differences as regards procedure; and, as I have explained, 10 persons—aliens—were dealt with under those Regulations and sentenced to death. It is quite possible that without legislation we might have introduced a Regulation dealing with this question, but it was decided that it was much better to come to the House in such a grave matter for their express approval instead of relying on Regulations—the more so because in the last war there was a covering provision in the Defence of the Realm Act itself under which a Regulation imposing the death penalty was made. But if hon. Members are disposed to raise legal points I hope they will excuse me if I do not pursue them because my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is here and I am sure he will be glad to deal with any such questions.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Clynes: I have been asked to say a little in support of this Bill, and I have no doubt that my few words will receive the approval of a very large number of hon. Gentlemen behind

me, although it may be that for reasons of principle some will take the view that this Bill ought not to be passed and ought not, indeed, to have been introduced. Those of us who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, short as it was, but the more commendable for that reason, felt that he gave in precise and most informed terms a weight of argument in support of the introduction of this Bill. It has but three operative Clauses and the right hon. Gentleman clearly explained to us that it was in the first two Clauses that the main purposes of the Bill were outlined. Why is it necessary to introduce such a Bill when already on the Statute Book there is a number of provisions designed to deal with this matter? Well, my view is that in the main this war is being fought with many new forms of weapons and that the country must take precautions against the use of these weapons. There are tendencies, conspiracies and movements totally unknown in the case of previous encounters between countries, and in order to frustrate and prevent them from reaching any harmful and effective development this Bill is, in my view, essential.
I regard an act of treachery against one's own country as perhaps one of the most abominable crimes any man can commit—as an enormity. It is such an odious thing to do, that for my part I am prepared to set aside principle on the general question of capital punishment and see imposed the extreme form of penalty for such a crime as this. I do so more readily because, like so many others, I have an appreciation of the fairness of British justice and the manner in which our courts deal with offenders. I believe those standards of British justice will be maintained in the administration of an Act of Parliament which will result from this Bill. I believe that such an Act may well prevent and deter intending offenders from committing any serious acts against our country, and I should be happy to find that even though the House of Commons will assent to this Bill our experience will show that there is no need to use it. It is hard indeed to take away the life of an individual, but what an awful thing it is to help to take away the life of a nation. But this Bill will not allow a suspected offender to be taken out and shot because of mere suspicion; facts of evidence will have to be adduced to satisfy the court that treachery was intended or employed.


In peace-time we are moved, in cases of murder, to acts of clemency and mercy. I think that in the hearts of most men and women there is an inborn dislike of imposing the penalty of death. When we have to deal with such questions as passion, jealousy or provocation we take all these things into account in the final examination. Even though the law may be on one side our minds and mercies are on the other. But in war there rests on all of us a heavy obligation, and we ought not to shrink from it even though it may require the setting aside of certain principles which we formerly held deeply. I do not think it is necessary to say more. This Bill is essential, I believe, as a contribution to the maintenance of the life of a nation and the liberty of the people, and I hope it will receive the general approval of the House of Commons.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I am sorry indeed that the Government have thought it necessary to introduce this Bill. The death penalty is morally repugnant to a very large number of people, of whom I am one, and I do not feel I can allow the Bill to go through without making a protest. I share the contempt and indignation which must be felt for the traitor. It may seem odd that at a time like the present, when we are faced with probably the gravest crisis this country has ever known and when the best blood of the nation is being poured out, I should appear to plead for the life of a few traitors. If anybody thinks I am pleading for their lives he is mistaken as to the attitude adopted by those who oppose the death penalty. I am not concerned with the fate of the individual but what I am passionately concerned with is the attitude of the community to him. I am not prepared to dispute that the traitor deserves death, because I do not quite know what the word "deserves" means. I do not know how to measure deserts because there is no criterion by which you can measure them. A century ago a man deserved death if he stole a sheep. Deserts are not something inherent either in the offender or in the offence; they are our own subjective judgments upon that offender. For that reason I am not in any way concerned to dispute either the heinousness of the offence of treachery or the contempt for the traitor himself. I think everybody knows Hamlet's question:

Treat every man after his deserts, and who should escape a whipping?
How many remember Hamlet's reply:
Treat him not after his deserts but according to thane own honour and dignity.
I feel passionately that the death penalty is beneath the honour and dignity of a great and civilised community, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I oppose the Bill.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Suppose that the act of treachery endangered the lives of a large number of our fighting forces at the front, at sea or in the air, would you still take that point of view?

Mr. Benson: I have not in any way differentiated my attitude towards an act of treachery from the attitude expressed by the Home Secretary. I wish to make that perfectly clear. My difference with the Home Secretary is not on a question of treachery but how it should be treated. The right hon. Gentleman says that the death penalty is a necessity, and it is upon that point I join issue with him, not on the contemptibility of treachery or the need for punishment of treachery. I am not suggesting that traitors should be allowed to go free and wander alone up and down the country doing their damage. All I say is that the death penalty is repugnant to me and other people and I hope to show that it is not a necessity. The claim that the death penalty is necessary rests on an old fallacy which has been disproved innumerable times.
If you increase severity beyond a certain point that does not increase its deterrent effect. In the eighteenth century over 185 offences were punishable by death, but lawlessness flourished. England became a law-abiding country not because of the death penalty but because of the steadily increasing efficiency of the police system. For 75 years flogging has been held up to this country as the deterrent penalty par excellence. Then a Departmental Committee was appointed, the evidence of those 75 years was examined under a microscope and the committee came to the conclusion that there was not a shred of evidence to show that the severity of flogging had any more effect than ordinary imprisonment. Let me repeat, the whole of our history shows that the


severity of punishment does not, beyond a certain point, increase the deterrent effect.
I am not at all certain that the introduction of this Bill is not a danger rather than a safeguard. To begin with, punishment after the offence has been committed is like shutting the door after the horse has gone. All history shows that if you want to put down crime you must have efficient detection and certainty of punishment rather than severity. Let me give a rather flippant example. Every Member of this House who is a motorist takes a risk if he drives at 40, 50 or 60 miles an hour when he gets the opportunity. At that speed he may easily have an accident which would kill him, but it does not deter him. I know it does not deter me, nor do I suppose it deters the right hon. Gentleman when he drives his car. But I ask, is there any Member of this House who ever overtakes a police car at more than 30 miles an hour in a restricted area? The penalty there is certain; the 7s. 6d. penalty keeps us at 30 miles an hour but the possible risk of death does not have the slightest effect. It is the certainty of punishment not the severity which is effective, and if we are going to rely upon the severity of the punishment we are going to rely on what all history has invariably proved to be a broken reed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1940.
2. Torquay Cemetery Act, 1940. 
3. Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Act, 1940. 
4. Wessex Electricity Act, 1940.
5. Commercial Gas Act, 1940.
6. Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Act, 1940.
7. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1940.
8. Northallerton Urban District Council Act, 1940

Orders of the Day — TREACHERY BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Benson: I conclude by saying that to rely upon a savage penalty is to rely on a method which has invariably failed. The only method of putting down crime is the increased efficiency of your police force, not the severity but the certainty of the penalty. That is true now. Treachery must be stopped, but do not let us rely on what has proved to be a broken reed. Severity is dangerous as a substitute for an efficient police and is unnecessary as a supplement.

6.14 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure Members in all parts of the House will respect the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), who, we recognise, speaks with deep feelings on this matter, and who will no doubt realise that he is in a minority on this occasion. I am sure we all recognise also that the country is in such danger that it is the duty of Parliament to pass legislation which will enable proper acts to be taken and which will give confidence to the liege subjects of His Majesty that prompt and effective action is possible. There is always the danger, when feelings are naturally roused, of people taking the law into their own hands, which is something we do not want. As the right hon. Gentleman explained, the procedure of the Treason Law is full of ritual and is of great antiquity, and in consequence, it is quite useless for meeting the sort of emergency which confronts us to-day. I hope and believe that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading without a Division, because if there were a Division, even on a question of conscience as it would be for one or two hon. Members, it might give a false impression outside, which would be unfortunate.
The Home Secretary emphasised the fact that this is only for grave acts. One rather wonders whether more definition will be given as to what constitutes a grave act. In questions of treachery and plotting against the safety of the State, we have never yet in this country had to confront a situation of actual invasion, and one of the most difficult things for the Government, and for all those in positions of responsibility, is to give to people in every part of the country a feeling of confidence that this situa-


tion is well in hand. There is, I am afraid, a rather widespread feeling to-day that we have been somewhat lenient and that there are possibly people in our midst who are not all they would wish to appear. I believe that to be a fact, and if that fact is known, and there are rumours about such people, it seems to me to be all the more essential that Parliament should pass a Measure of this sort which will give a sense of confidence to the country that the new situation will be met, and met with firmness and courage by those who have to act.
I should like to raise one matter in connection with Clause 2, Sub-section (1, c), where there is a provision for a member of the Armed Forces or of the Crown, or of the armed forces of any foreign power, including an enemy power, being handed over and shot. I do not know whether the Home Secretary recognises that there are some people who wonder whether it would not be wise at this time to define a little more clearly what exactly is the position under the law if a man belonging to enemy forces lands in this country, either by parachute or in some other way, in plain clothes or in a disguise of some sort. I notice from reports in the newspapers that whenever this method has been employed during hostilities recently, the men who have been sent down by parachute have had various disguises. Whether they have had a uniform underneath the disguises, and have discarded the disguises some time after landing, I do not know, but I think it is essential that, if the rule of uniform and all that it stands for in international law is to be understood, it is most important that there should be an authoritative statement at the earliest possible moment as to the position of a soldier in disguise, belonging to an enemy Power, who suddenly appears in this country and is caught red-handed while attempting to blow up some building or destroy life. A great many different views have been advanced by legal luminaries, and the matter is one that ought to be clearly stated. Any one of us in the very near future may be confronted with such a situation, and I suppose this is about the last occasion on which it will be possible to get some definition on this subject.
Another thing which I think ought to be emphasised is that any penalties, and certainly the death penalty, when carried

out should be a deterrent to others. We have to recognise that the German Government, being completely ruthless, have used the power of execution by beheading in a particularly horrible way in order to put down any chance of espionage in Germany, and they have, I think, been successful because they have made the fact public, and made all the grisly details public as well. I hope that if these sentences are carried out the public will be told that they have been carried out, because then they will act as a deterrent, and, we hope, prevent other people from adopting a similar course. I trust that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I hope that we may be given some further explanation on the points I have ventured to raise.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I should like to say a few words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. In his very clear exposition, the Home Secretary fully justified the Government in bringing forward the Bill. Although they could have dealt with this matter under the Defence of the Realm Act and Regulations, I think that, in view of the gravity of the Measure, the Government were wise in coming here and getting the express approval of Parliament. The Home Secretary referred to the question of the death penalty as such in peace time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has dealt fully with that matter. In normal peaceful times, I am strongly in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. I think its abolition is fully justified by experience, and I know there are many Members in all parts of the House who take the same view. But what on earth has that to do with the situation in which we find ourselves to-day? The mere fact of going to war means that we are obliged deliberately to kill large numbers of men, and when we think that not only men, but women and children, are being deliberately machine-gunned in a most ruthless manner by the enemy, surely it is not too much to ask that the people who facilitate that and who make it possible for such outrages to be carried out should suffer the death penalty which they themselves are inflicting on large numbers of people. I cannot help feeling that it shows a lack of a sense of proportion to imagine that one can relent, and apply what is a per-


fectly reasonable and sound argument under normal conditions to the fearful position in which we now find ourselves. I venture to hope that the Measure will be given a Second Reading without a Division.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) feels that in time of war principles of law that are of immense importance can be disregarded because of the fact that in war human life is a thing of no account in many cases. Surely, even in a very grave crisis such as this we ought to see that any laws that are framed are in harmony with the spirit that has moulded our civilisation and made for progress during the whole of the last century. During all that time we have gradually eliminated the death penalty from our Statutes, and with good results in every way. I appreciate very much the spirit in which the Home Secretary introduced this Measure, and the very kindly way in which he referred to those, of whom I am one, who are in principle opposed to capital punishment.
But on this occasion I want to ask the House to consider not merely the question of principle, but the question of expediency. We have reason to know from history the grievous results that have followed from the execution, even under proper military law, of those who were technically guilty of espionage. I will not deal with more recent cases, but one may refer particularly to the case of Major Andréin the American War of Independence. Undoubtedly he was guilty of espionage under the laws of war, and he was executed by the American army authorities. This caused bitter feeling for a long time, which might have been avoided if the death penalty had not been inflicted. In the last war, after the Easter rising in Dublin in 1916, I remember how it was considered absolutely necessary by the Prime Minister and the military authorities that the leaders of the Easter Rebellion should be executed at once. Can we doubt for a moment that if, instead of execution, a long sentence of imprisonment had been imposed, relations between our two countries would be immensely better now?
One of the strongest arguments against the infliction of the death penalty is its irrevocability. Under the terms of the Bill, the intention is of primary importance. How is any court to make a perfect judgment as to intention? In most cases it can be only by inferring it by a process of reasoning deduced from acts. In any case there may be mistakes which afterwards may come to light, and if the death penalty is inflicted, there is no possibility of redress. I do not ask that the Government should deal leniently with this terrible offence. It is urgently necessary in present circumstances that severe measures should be taken. However, I hope that in the Committee stage it may be possible to move to the Clause which inflicts the death penalty an Amendment allowing to the court the alternative of a very long sentence of imprisonment.
I hope to have the opportunity of moving an Amendment of that kind, and I ask the Government to consider it. It would give an option to the court. It would not leave it just to the possibility of two charges being conjoined and the minor charge alone sustained. It would make it possible for the court, where it had any hesitation in inflicting the death penalty, to inflict a long sentence of imprisonment. I believe that an Amendment on those lines would lead to the passing of this Bill in a very different spirit from that which would otherwise be the case, and it would avoid the possibility of the gravest injustices that might occur, without the possibility of there being any redress, if the Bill were passed into law as it is now framed.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I wish to associate myself with those who have deplored the introduction of this Bill at this time. I know that, in taking that view, one is running counter to the overwhelming feeling in this House, and it may well be, for all I know, the overwhelming feeling in the country. No doubt, we are passing through very dangerous, difficult and critical days. We are being compelled to meet a new type of warfare which uses treachery as one of its weapons, and everyone can sympathise with the feeling which has probably prompted the Government to introduce this Bill and will probably guide large masses of the public to approve of it. But continually we are being exhorted, and rightly exhorted, by


the Government and by all responsible people not to lose our heads when we are passing through critical times. We are told that we ought not to be carried away by the crisis through which we are passing; that we should keep a cool judgment and do things which are justified on their merits, rather than things which are excusable by reason of the emotions and the passions entailed by the crisis.
I listened very carefully to the Home Secretary's speech because I was interested to learn why the Government thought this Bill necessary. The right hon. Gentleman was at pains to explain that the gist of the Bill was to be found in Clause 1, and that in Clause 1 nothing was made a capital offence which was not a capital offence before. He qualified that statement a little, and I shall deal later with his qualification, but he commended the Bill, especially to those of us who have always detested capital punishment, on the ground that the capital penalty was not being extended and that no new capital offence was created by Clause 1. I do not think that any new capital offence is created by Clause 1, subject to the qualification to which I shall come in a moment and which I suppose the Home Secretary had in mind, but I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friends who say that we ought not to pass this Bill because of the objection to the death penalty in itself.
I suppose that if we are passing through a war in which hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of lives may be lost, thousands of them it may be by treachery of the kind against which this Bill is aimed, one need not expect the House of Commons or the country to be particularly squeamish about the lives of a small number of individuals. Nor do I dissent from the vivid description given by my right hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench of the odiousness of this kind of treachery in war. It is easily understandable that people should be deeply moved by considerations of that kind, although I remember a speech made by the present Minister for Economic Warfare, in which he said that we had no quarrel with the German people, provided they did in Germany the very things which we regard as odious here. Still there it is. But if the capital penalty is not being extended and if no new capital offences are being created, one may ask why introduce the Bill at all?
It seems to me that the Bill is really being introduced in order to make quite certain that one class of offence—which I should have thought was a capital offence anyhow—is treated as a capital offence. That is the case of an enemy alien, not subject even to a local allegiance, who commits any of the acts described in Clause 1. I should have thought that an offence of that kind was well covered already. If an enemy soldier arrived in this country in disguise and committed acts of that kind, I should have thought that there would be no difficulty in dealing with him. But supposing that that is not so. Supposing there is here a type of act which is not now a capital offence, an act committed by an enemy alien, owing no general and no local allegiance in this country, then none of the strictures which have been applied, rightly, to acts of treachery by our own citizens or by those owing allegiance to this country, can possibly apply. All the odiousness goes from the act if it is committed as a duty to a man's own country. In that sense I do not think we ought to create a new capital offence. I do not think the Government intended to do so.
If it was thought desirable to make that a capital offence which was not previously a capital offence, I cannot understand why a short Measure could not have been introduced for that single purpose and discussed on its own merits. Whatever may be thought now, however acceptable this Measure may be to the House and the country to-day, a time will come when we shall, perhaps, a little, regret the fact that we thought it necessary in these circumstances and at this time to introduce this Measure. It adds nothing to our powers of dealing with our own traitors. It is admitted by everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman, that those powers are ample. I do not object to the exercise of those powers but what this Bill does is to add something to them out of a feeling approaching panic, which, some day, we may regret.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: When the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said it was our duty at the present time to keep our heads, I was reminded of a story which I heard of a parachutist who descended in Holland. He landed in the middle of a field in which there was a lady with a scythe.


She used the scythe against the parachutist, who said to her, "Ah, you have missed." The lady replied, "You try to shake your head and you will know whether I have missed or not." I agree on the importance of keeping our heads, but there are certain people who may be regarded as running great risk of losing their heads. It may be that they are the best judges of what their actions ought to be in order to keep their heads. I am in a difficulty regarding this Bill. Although I am opposed to the war, I want it to be understood that I have no sympathy with people who may be regarded as Quislings. The man in any country who tries to assist that country's enemies in war or peace, who helps an enemy to accomplish hostile acts against the country to which he should owe some form of allegiance, is obnoxious to me but I believe that certain actions, even those taken during times of war, against that kind of thing are unnecessary.
I can illustrate the difficulty which arises in regard to this Bill by quoting a letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on behalf of the Home Secretary in reply to a request from my hon. Friend that he should be allowed to discuss certain questions arising from this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's secretary wrote:
The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you on his behalf wth reference to your request that you should be given an opportunity for comment on the terms of the revised Defence Regulation which, as foreshadowed in recent statements in the House, it is proposed to make to strengthen the existing powers of dealing with certain forms of anti-war propaganda.
Am I to take it that this Bill has been introduced with a view to dealing with those engaged in anti-war propaganda? If not, then I am prepared to accept complete assurances on the point. If it is intended to deal only with those who are inclined to, or are anxious to, betray the interests of the country, I have no objection to measures being taken, although naturally I object to the death penalty. If I were a supporter of the war I would not object to the death penalty. If I agreed to the mass massacre of human beings in war, I could not salve my conscience by objecting to the imposition of the death penalty on those who sought to make the massacre still greater by acts of betrayal. But I have always been

opposed to the death penalty. I lived for two years in the State of Queensland where there is no death penalty, and though it is often argued that people are more inclined to do certain deeds in the absence of the death penalty, in that State there was, I understand, a lower rate of crime, including murder, than in any other State in Australia and almost any other State where the death penalty was in operation. I remember that in the last war we took out men like James Connolly and shot them because they had taken part in the Easter rising in Ireland. According to the reports James Connolly, a man who had had his left leg amputated, was taken from hospital and propped into a chair and a volley of bullets fired into his body. It was a revolting thing for any State to authorise, and for any human beings to be asked to do under military discipline.
I remember going with the hon. Member for Bridgeton to investigate conditions in Ireland during the time of very serious trouble there. I went to Kilmainham Gaol and I was shown the little houses from which at two o'clock in the morning men were taken one by one and placed along a wall of sandbags and shot. They were killed by order of the soldiers. There were ten men killed, and one of these three hours before had been married in that prison. They were killed because they were people who believed they were fighting for democracy in their country against the imperialism imposed, on them, such as that imposed by Hitler in Czechoslovakia. In these conditions I look back with a feeling of revulsion that a country of which I happen to be a citizen has acts of that kind staining its whole history. It may be as a result of hatred and passion that acts of that kind are permitted. Hatred comes into many actions during a period of war. For example, men may be seized although they may not be intending to assist the enemy. You may be able to prove a satisfactory case against them before a court-martial. They are men supposed to be guilty of a certain crime, but it may be that these individuals are wrongly convicted. They are brought out before a firing squad, and sometimes it is discovered afterwards that they were wrongly convicted.
You cannot redeem the life you have taken away, but if some other form of punishment had been devised, there would be the possibility of redress. Time also


heals many wounds. In spite of the fact that we have a tremendous number of well-meaning assurances from the Front Bench which one is loth not to accept, we have seen statements of the ex-Prime Minister in regard to conscientious objectors which have been offered as evidence before the tribunals turned down. Their reply has been that they have nothing to do with what the Prime Minister had said in the House of Commons, but that it was the Act with which they were dealing and the Act as they interpreted it.
If I went into an area during a period of extreme crisis during this war and made a very strong anti-war speech saying that the slaughter was all wrong, that we should reason these things out and get down to settling things at the earliest possible moment, that could be interpreted as designed to assist the enemy in so far as it would weaken our morale or war effort. Although it is not specifically in the Bill, I am asking the Minister if he can give a complete assurance that this Measure is not designed to limit in any way any genuine anti-war propaganda or peace propaganda in this country. If he can give that assurance I am completely satisfied in relation to the Measure, with the exception of the point I have mentioned, that I am always opposed to the death penalty on principle. This nation to-day is being led to disaster by a group of people who have no vision and courage to bring the slaughter to an end. In these circumstances I am legitimately entitled to go to the human beings whose sons are being thrown into the furnace and to say that I think the whole basis is wrong and that intelligence should be allowed to operate. I am entitled to tell them that we are living in a changing world where everything is changing and reason should be allowed to prevail. I think that I am rendering a service to the country and its citizens in acting as a brake on the extreme jingoes in the Government, outside the Government and in the Press. I say that we are entitled to express that point of view, and I ask the Minister to give a very definite and specific assurance that this Bill will at no time be used against those in this country who attempt to carry on genuine peace or anti-war propaganda, and that it is only designed to deal with those attempting to betray the country in a desperate effort to assist Germany in the war.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am glad to support this Bill before the House, although I have very deep sympathy with those who have expressed themselves as, opposed to capital punishment and who have held the very Christian doctrine that capital punishment in peace-time should not be carried into effect. But is there any Member in the House who can say that the nation employed in this struggle to-day is doing it on broad Christian principles? The conduct of this war necessitates the abandonment of what we know to be Christian principles, and it could not be conducted if we attempted to base our operations upon the turning of one cheek to the enemy after having been struck upon the other. It may be demonstrated mathematically that in peace-time, in those countries where capital punishment for murder has been abandoned, there has not been thereby any increase of crime and that possibly there has been a diminution. Surely in the days of war we are living under entirely different conditions. We have witnessed on the Continent a veritable army of treacherously-minded persons prepared at all hazards to bring down those whom they deem to be their enemy. They are prepared to do so upon the highest grounds of patriotism. Does anyone imagine that, if we alone among the European nations were prepared to abandon the death penalty for acts of treachery—and let it be remembered that one act of treachery may mean the death of large numbers of innocent citizens, belligerent or otherwise—there would not be a great increase in the number of traitors from foreign countries?
I see the greatest danger in abandoning the severest punishment which can be inflicted for treachery. The traitor is prepared to run great risks, but if the heads of the State which is our enemy could advise their subjects that this country had abandoned the severest penalty of capital punishment in favour of a term of long imprisonment, would that not be an enormous incentive for an increase in the number of those prepared to take up weapons in defence of what they believe to be the highest patriotism for their own country? Everyone knows that after the war there may be, and is likely to be, a plan for exchanging political and other prisoners. One can foresee that perhaps those guilty of acts of treachery, instead of being executed,


might be exchanged for prisoners in Germany. If we abolished capital punishment, there would undoubtedly be an increase in the treachery to which this country is at the present moment subjected.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I had the honour to be the chairman of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment, which sat throughout 1930. I may tell the House that I put aside practically every other form of work for that whole year to give my mind fully to the preparation of that Committee's report. We brought evidence from countries near and far which had abolished the death penalty and from countries which had continued it. I desire to say that what we were dealing with then is not the question before the House to-day. We were dealing with offences before civil courts in times of peace, and our terms of reference were:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of capital punishment in cases tried by civil courts in time of peace.
The same is borne out by our recommendation at the end of 1930, which was in these words:
That a Bill be introduced and passed into law during the present Session providing for the abolition of the death penalty for an experimental period of five years in cases tried in civil courts in times of peace.
The same thing was borne out by the Motion proposed in this House by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on 16th November, 1938:
That this House would welcome legislation by which the death penalty should be abolished in times of peace for an experimental period of five years.
I may remind the House that that Motion was carried by 114 to 89. On what grounds was the report adopted and that Motion carried? One of the main considerations was one which has been stated to-day, particularly by the hon. Member for Abingdon(Sir R. Glyn)—the deterrency of the death penalty. After long consideration we came to the conclusion that that aspect had been greatly exaggerated, that in many cases it was not a deterrent at all, and that there were alternative deterrents that could be considered and that were described. Our conclusion on the subject of deterrency was:

That its efficacy as a deterrent was a matter of conjecture, and that it was not justifiable to retain such a revolting penalty on the precarious basis of mere supposition.
We were dealing with peace-time and with offences that could be tried by civil courts. But if the death penalty is not a deterrent in peace-time, as we thought we had proved, it cannot be argued that it must be a deterrent in war-time. If it is a necessity, as has been argued, in war-time you are giving away your ground for arguing that it is not a deterrent in peace-time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), although I cannot seek to attain his experience in law on these matters. He pointed out that there was already in the law dealing with treason sufficient ground for dealing fully with all these cases. It was long before Scotland came into line with England in this matter. It was not until 1889, in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, that murder and treason were put together as the two remaining subjects for the death penalty. I believe that the law itself is a little wider, but in practice these are the two offences for which the death penalty can be applied in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) thought that if the death penalty was applied more widely, we should be able very likely to deter many people from committing this offence, but that raises the whole question of deterrency with which I have dealt.
War must always be brutal, and it will become more brutal the longer it lasts. We cannot humanise this dreadful orgy of "man's inhumanity to man," but there is no reason why we should in any way make it more revolting, or be forced to do anything that might lead us to say we were departing from our strict principles. I content myself with a protest against this provision. We do not desire to divide the House on the subject, but I want to make my protest. I feel that I could not be true to my deepest convictions if I agreed to an extension of the death penalty, or to what the Home Secretary called the application of greater stringency and the extension of the limits in which it could apply. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting went the length of saying that there were times when in face of great emergency we should be ready to put principle aside. I have no doubt that many would agree


with that. Therein, I differ. Anyone familiar with the history of the Co-operative movement will remember that one of its pioneers was William Cooper, on whose grave there is this inscription:
He acted on principle always, everywhere, and in all circumstances.
It is because I should like to make that my own principle that I utter my humble protest against the seeming extension of the death penalty.

7.7 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I want to raise a point with regard to Clause 2 (1, b) dealing with enemy aliens. I gather that the reason for making it possible to deal with enemy aliens, if the Attorney-General thinks fit, before a court-martial and not by a procedure which would apply to others is that the provision is intended to apply to aliens like parachutists in disguise or to people who are, in fact, soldiers. There is a difficulty with regard to a civil enemy alien who is a refugee in this country and is resident as a civilian. There may be a danger in applying the different machinery of a court-martial rather than an ordinary court to such a person. In time of war the feeling of prejudice that exists against aliens might cause a court-martial, which is composed of people who are not so cognisant of the principles of justice as an ordinary court, to deal with enemy aliens in a way in which they would not be dealt with if they came before an ordinary court. May we know from the Home Secretary whether it is the intention only to deal with enemy aliens under this Clause by court-martial if they are de facto soldiers? Otherwise, I am afraid that injustice might be done under this Bill if fear and panic grow, and it was used against enemy aliens who were ordinary civilians and who might be tempted to help their fellow countrymen in some way. I do not say that they should not be severely punished, but one would like to be sure that they were tried by machinery which dealt with them in a judicial spirit and not in the spirit of a court martial, which is usually composed of people who have not the same knowledge of judicial procedure as other courts. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) asked whether this Bill could be used against people who are only preaching peace or speaking against the war. The right hon. Gentleman will give

his own reply, but, reading this Bill, I do not think it is intended to be used in cases where people are merely engaged in peace propaganda.

Mr. McGovern: But it is in this letter.

Sir J. Anderson: The letter in question, if I am not mistaken, was concerned with Amendments to two Regulations which had nothing to do with this Bill at all. The Amendments to the Regulations were, in fact, made I think, last Thursday. There is no question of this Bill being concerned in that connection.

Miss Rathbone: I imagined that that was probably so. What I want to say is that I think a good many of us who are passionate supporters of free speech, and very much on our guard, even in war time, against any infringements of the right of free speech, have been feeling recently that when a country is fighting for its life there are, and ought to be, limits to the extent to which a dissident minority can sabotage it, in the moral sense, try to weaken the national effort, by doing everything they can to spread a spirit of defeatism and of suspicion as to the causes of the war. Many of us who are, to use the common phrase, "Left wing," and have upheld in all circumstances the rights of minorities to speak the truth as they see it, are growing anxious about the extent, and to some degree about the effect, of propaganda of the kind carried on by the Communist party, by the Fascist party and even by some who take the view of the hon. Member for Shettleston, who are preaching all the time that this is a capitalist war, a war of aggression and an unnecessary war. That is weakening the national effort.
The right hon. Gentleman has already explained that that does not come under the terms of this Bill, but I think we should very much like to know what are the limits which are to be placed upon the rights of dissident minorities to weaken the national effort by at any rate public expositions of their views as to the futility and the uselessness of the present war. I say that with great reluctance, because a little while ago I could not imagine supporting any kind of limitation upon freedom of speech, but unless it is checked in a reasonable way I feel that as the sense of the national danger grows, there will be a very ugly boiling-up


of mob indignation and we may be rushed into extreme action against a dissident majority. I think many of us are doubtful how far that kind of peace propaganda or, rather, anti-war propaganda can be carried on under the present law and what are the Government's intentions with regard to it.

7.14 p.m.

Major Milner: I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) that the matter to which she last referred does require some consideration. I think it is clear, however, that nothing of what is in her mind comes within the terms of Clause 1 of this Bill. I should like to correct another assumption which the hon. Lady made. She rather suggested that courts-martial might be less careful of justice than an ordinary court of law in a case and of the greater necessity for proper procedure. While the procedure of a court-martial is somewhat different, I can assure her from my experience, which for a short time was quite extensive, that there is no fairer tribunal than a court-martial, and if I had the choice of appearing before some civil courts or before a court-martial, I should probably prefer the court-martial.

Mr. Silverman: Has the hon. and gallant Member observed that if someone is to be the subject of a civil indictment for an offence under this Bill, the proceedings cannot start unless the Attorney-General has given his fiat, but that in the case of the enemy alien who is to be tried by court-martial proceedings can be started without anybody's fiat, apparently at the will of anybody at all?

Major Milner: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, the position is precisely the contrary. Clause 2 (1, b) says:
Any enemy alien may, if the Attorney-General so directs, be prosecuted for an offence against this Act before a court martial.

Mr. Silverman: I read that, and I see what the hon. and gallant Member means, but if he will look lower down on the same page, he will see that Sub-section (2) says:
No prosecution in respect of any offence against this Act shall be instituted, otherwise than by way of proceedings for a trial by court martial, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Having said it in the first two lines of the page, it is not necessary to say it again. My consent having been already provided for in (I, b) in the case of a court martial, it was necessary from the point of view of drafting to take it out from the words dealing with civil prosecutions below.

Major Milner: In fact, no prosecution in respect of any offence by any person can be taken under this Act except by and with the consent of the Attorney-General, and therefore such consent must be necessary before any enemy alien can be prosecuted before a court martial. However that may be, I felt some little doubt in my mind as to the position I should adopt towards this Bill, because of the fact that some nine or ten years ago I served under the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) on the Select Committee which considered capital punishment and was one of those who, having no preconceived notions on the matter and coming to my conclusion on the evidence alone, was convinced that the abolition of capital punishment was desirable. But I think I should make it clear, as did the hon. Member for Coat-bridge, that at no time had that committee under consideration anything other than the abolition of capital punishment in peace-time. Quite clearly, entirely different considerations may arise in the present circumstances, and none of us who felt it right to come to one conclusion whilst sitting on that committee need be under any difficulty in coming to another conclusion in the present circumstances, when we are at war.
I am bound to say that when a Government, any Government, comes to the House in the present circumstances of the country and asks for powers, unless there is some strong overriding reason for refusing them, it is the bounden duty of all of us to grant the powers for which they ask. It seems to me that the present circumstances are so novel, the consequences may be so serious and the matters at stake are so important, that we ought not to hesitate a moment to grant to the Government the fullest possible powers. They are, of course, only enabling powers. The Government may or may not act upon them, but they necessarily require to have the fullest possible powers in order to enable them to bring the war to a successful conclusion at the earliest


possible date. Therefore I cannot refuse in any way to change my opinion because at one time, and in entirely different circumstances, namely, peace-time, I was in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. Now I feel myself bound to support the Government in regard to the Bill.
For the greater consolation of some of my hon. Friends, I would point out that there are obvious safeguards in the Bill. In the first place, there is the necessity for the Attorney-General's fiat, as my hon. Friend has already appreciated. That is a very substantial safeguard, because that fiat would be given only in serious and important cases. There is another safeguard, which may offer some consolation to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), who is concerned, as I was on first reading the Bill, to ensure if possible that it was not essential in every case, after a verdict of "Guilty" had been brought in, that the death penalty should necessarily be inflicted. I am aware that this is the law at present in regard to murder, and indeed in regard to treason and one or two other offences, but the Home Secretary pointed out that it would be competent for the Attorney-General so to conduct a prosecution as to join other and lesser offences with those constituting the charge under the Bill. In that way, a loophole would be found whereby, in less serious cases of offences coming under the Bill, it would be possible for the court to award a less penalty than death. That consolation may be less satisfactory than the hon. Member might wish, but, along with the safeguard of the Attorney-General's fiat, it seems to me to make a very considerable difference, and it ought to be some consolation.
I was a little troubled that the word "treachery" should be brought into the law. It seems a very atrocious and objectionable word. [Hon. Members: "Treacherable."] A treacherable offence, I agree, but I do not think the word "treachery" has ever been used in the English law before. I wondered why we could not have retained the old word "treason." I imagine that the Attorney-General will explain that the word "treachery" may be more easily understood by the great majority of the people than the old term "treason," which has all sorts of connotations and which, except in war time, we have nothing of in this country. The arguments advanced by the

Home Secretary for the bringing-in of this Bill, notwithstanding the existing law of treason, were good. It is always desirable to remove doubts, and there are apparently doubts in regard to the strict application of the law to treason. For this reason the Bill is justified.
The Home Secretary also made it clear that it was desirable to do another advantageous thing, which was to do away with all the old trappings connected with the trial of the offence of treason. As I understood it, any offence under the Bill will be tried before the ordinary courts and according to the ordinary methods, except in those cases where it is, for reasons which I should rather like the Attorney-General to indicate to us, right and proper to have the case tried before a court martial. I regard the Bill as an important and regrettable necessity, but it is our bounden duty to give the Government, in the present circumstances, all the powers for which they ask.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I do not want to detain the House for any length of time on the Bill, which is, of course, a legacy from the previous Government, as is demonstrated by the fact that the two Secretaries of State whose names appear on the back of the Bill are no longer in the positions they occupied when the Bill was prepared. It is regrettable, at this time of day, that there should be a development of this kind, and an extension, or a seeming extension, of capital punishment, for any offence. The desire, surely, is to prevent any offender from committing an offence again, and that aim is attained most effectively, of course, by making it impossible for him to do anything at all; but the power of taking away life by human agency cannot be exercised in the reverse direction in respect of the same individual. You cannot give back what you take away, and I regret that man should take upon himself the responsibility of taking away life. The offender might, in the end, otherwise be a changed man, but the opportunity for that change is taken away. To take away life itself is one of the strongest arguments against capital punishment.
No one would seek to condone the offence with which the Bill seeks to deal. No one with any spirit of patriotism at


all would seek to defend treachery against the country to which he belongs. I come from the countryside of Sir Walter Scott, who breathed patriotism in many of his poems, including, of course, the poem which says:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said
'This is my own, ray native land?' 
I cannot possibly condone such an act as treachery against my country. No one could do so with that sort of spirit born and bred in him. I hope that there is no need ostensibly to dissociate myself from the idea of questioning the wisdom of the Bill or to protest that the offence of treachery against one's country is abhorrent to me. Much reference has been made to the deterrent effectiveness of capital punishment. The standing refutation of capital punishment as a deterrent is to be found across the way, in New Scotland Yard, where, in the museum, there is a reference to a hangman who had hanged many men finally coming to the gallows himself. I know that the argument could be used in the reverse way and that it could be said that he had become so accustomed to seeing people pass, by his agency, out of this life in that way that he thought nothing of the penalty being inflicted upon himself.
I got up, however, not so much to make these or any general observations on the Bill, as to ask that a point might be cleared up that was left unanswered by the Home Secretary when he made his first announcement in the House of this Bill being prepared. On that occasion the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) seemed to urge the Home Secretary to use the powers of the new Bill to deal with what he wanted to describe as the subversive activities of the Oxford Group. He did not use that name, because he does not like the idea of the name of Oxford being associated with those who stand for moral rearmament. I intervened when that question was put, to indicate that the hon. Member for Oxford University was wrong in talking about moral disarmament, and I corrected him by saying it was moral rearmament, and that I hoped that the Home Secretary had not in mind to deal with the activities of that group in any new punitive legislation. The activities of that group and those who are

endeavouring at the present time to extend the practice of Christian principles are wholly beneficial to this country, as it seems to me. It is certain that in many cases they have helped the morale of people of this country. I claim that they are not in any way subversive to the unity of this country at the present time, and I hope that on these considerations the Attorney-General can answer categorically the question which was left unanswered by the Home Secretary on that afternoon when we had the intimation of this legislation coming forward. I hope also that the Attorney-General will be able clearly to say that not only by means of this Bill, but by means of any other punitive legislation, there is no intention whatever to deal with the activities of the Oxford Group, who stand for moral rearmament in this country.

7.32 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I think there must be some confusion in the minds of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in this sense, that I think they have regarded statements which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made with regard to propaganda as statements made with reference to this Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been certain Amendments introduced into the Regulation dealing with propaganda, and I think it was in connection with those Amendments that the reference to the Oxford Group arose. I can give a complete and categorical assurance that this Bill is not directed against propaganda. I think that a glance once more at Clause 1 of the Bill should really satisfy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that point.

Mr. McGovern: Would it be against the State?

The Attorney-General: No. The first thing that has to be proved is intent to help the enemy. If your object is to raise your own wages or some other industrial object, you are outside this Bill altogether. First of all you have to prove intent to help the enemy; you not only have to prove that, but the act has to be one which will assist the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, or impede the naval, military or air operations of our own country or endanger life. I think that with that statement it really is clear that propaganda which the hon. Gentle-


man had in mind and the activities, as I understand, of the Oxford Group have nothing whatever to do with the matter which is dealt with in this Bill.

Mr. Stephen: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt him? He will remember, in connection with the Official Secrets Act that his predecessor in office gave an assurance that the Official Secrets Act had nothing to do with a particular kind of writing or utterance with regard to secrets, and then the court afterwards decided that it had; there was then the agitation to secure the repeal of the Official Secrets Act. We are concerned in the same way to-day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gives the assurance that it has not to do with propaganda, but it is quite conceivable that the court afterwards will say, "You said so and so. The fact that you said so and so proves that you had intent to help the enemy."

Miss Rathbone: If I may be allowed, may I put it in this way? May not the court hold that anyone who tries to prevent his fellow countrymen from fighting the enemy has an intention to help the enemy, as indeed the effect of that action obviously is, and does not the anxiety of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken show that they are conscious that the effect of their propaganda is to help the enemy and they are afraid that the courts may think that too?

The Attorney-General: I venture to suggest that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen should look at the Bill. I do not think they can really come to any other conclusion than that which I have indicated to the House. Everybody familiar with criminal procedure knows that if you have to prove such an intent as is here provided—an intent to help the enemy—you have to satisfy the jury beyond all reasonable doubt that there was such an intent in the mind of the prisoner. When that is coupled with the further words:
does, or attempts or conspires….to do, any act. which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty's Forces….
I really do not think that anyone can have any doubt as to the accuracy of what I have said.

Mr. Silverman: I think everybody appreciates that the intention of the Bill is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but it is obvious from the Debate that there are doubts, and I would like to put one doubt of my own. It may well be that there is nothing in it, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can clear it up, I shall be grateful. I am looking at those words, "with intent to help the enemy," and I agree that that is the first thing which the prosecution would have to prove. The onus of proving that would lie upon the prosecution. I see the importance of that fact, but is there not a legal rule that the court may infer an intention? If you prove that the consequence of an act is to do these things defined in the Clause, and if it is a presumption of law that every man intends the reasonable consequences of his act, then the prosecution might escape by saying, "I cannot prove any actual intention positively, but I can and I do prove that it is a reasonable consequence of this act that it will have this effect; as every man is presumed to intend reasonable consequences I have proved reasonable consequences, and I have therefore proved the intent." I am certain that that is not what the Government had in mind or what they desired, but is there not possibly a danger there? If so, could it not be removed in some way?

The Attorney-General: I really do not think there could be any such danger. The words are quite plain. We are dealing with a case of a most serious character—a capital charge—where the burden on the prosecution has to be fulfilled to the last scintilla, if one may use that expression, and although, of course, the circumstances may build up evidence from which a jury may draw an intent—after all, the last arbiters are the jury—

Mr. Stephen: A jury of Miss Rathbones.

The Attorney-General: —I cannot imagine any possible subject matter in which 12 fair-minded Englishmen or Englishwomen would be more completely satisfied that criminal intent had to be proved than in a case of this kind. I will now turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). He suggested that this was legislation which might have been prepared in a panic in view of the gravity of the immediate situation. I can assure


him that that is not so. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, Clause 1, with the possible exception of one point, does not alter the law as it stands. It creates no new capital offence. The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to one of the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, namely, the possibility of the surreptitious alien who might not be within the doctrine of local allegiance. As the person who is likely to furnish my right hon. Friend with the details of prosecutions, I can assure the hon. Member that the other reason was one to which the Government attach great importance, and to which I, as Attorney-General, attach great importance. Treason trials are full of the most archaic rules. I think I am right in saying that the names and addresses of jurymen have to be served on the prisoner a certain period before the trial. There are technical rules which have to be observed. The trial normally takes place before three judges. When we came to look into the details more carefully, it became obvious to me, in my capacity as Attorney-General, that it was most desirable that we should have the ordinary criminal procedure, and not the special treason procedure.
That brings me to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner)—why "Treachery"? We thought that it would only create confusion if we called this a Treason Bill, because one of the purposes is to enable similar acts to be dealt with by different procedure. We chose "Treachery," which is a good English word for an extremely ignoble and contemptible act, as being likely to avoid the confusion which might have arisen if we had used the word "Treason."
I come to the question of the death penalty. That, of course, is one of those matters on which nothing that I said would convince people who think differently from me, and—if they do not think it amiss—nothing they said would convince me. Everybody respects the sincerity of the views expressed by the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), Nelson and Colne, and others. I should have thought that the particular crime dealt with by this Bill in war-time was appropriate for the death penalty if any human act ever was. We are dealing with men who, by deliberate acts, assist or attempt to assist the enemies of

this country in their military operations: that is to say, in killing our own countrymen; or who impede our own countrymen, so making it more probable that they will be killed. The hon. Gentleman, whom I do not see in his place, referred to the deterrent effect. One can argue about that, but that an act of this kind should be subject to the ultimate penalty is, I believe, in accordance with the desire of the vast majority of this House and of the country. It is an existing provision of our law. It is the case that the hon. Member's committee recommended only an experimental period of five years' exemption from the death penalty. No one would suggest that this is a good moment for starting such an experimental period.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Attorney-General say what would happen in the event of some misunderstanding occurring, say, in an engineering shop or a shipyard, such as occurred in the last war? If any of us went there and took the part of the men, as we did in the last war, would this Act operate, as the Defence of the Realm Act did, so that we could be arrested?

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I made my case. I can assure him that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the activities which, he has said, he himself undertook in the last war. There may well be other Bills, with other Regulations, but this Bill has nothing to do with any activities such as were followed by the hon. Gentleman in the last war.
I was asked one question by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). He is not in his place, but he explained to me that he had to go away on a matter of importance. He asked what was the position of an enemy who came down in a parachute, in plain clothes. Was he to be dealt with under this Bill or to be dealt with by more direct military action? It depends on the capacity in which he comes. If an enemy, whether an officer or not, drops in a parachute, in plain clothes, not as part of an attack, and not armed, but hoping that he will not be seen, and that he may do an act of espionage of the ordinary kind, he will be a perfectly appropriate person to be dealt with under this Bill. But if he comes, in plain clothes, as part of an


attacking force, he may be dealt with in the same way as people who attack this country in uniform, with this added disadvantage, that if attacking in plain clothes, people do not have the privileges which attach under international law to people in uniform, and if caught, they may be shot.
The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) referred to enemy aliens. One reason why this power is in the Bill is to meet the case of the enemy alien who is a member of the armed Forces. If he is caught here, it is more appropriate that he should be dealt with by a court martial; and that is one of the reasons for this provision. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds said in repudiating the criticisms which the hon. Lady passed on courts martial. I think it is quite untrue to say that they are not familiar with the forms of justice and not bound by rules of law. Everyone who has gone into this question, thinking that courts martial might have been prejudiced, has been immensely struck, not only by the fairness of the court martial, but by the care with which in the proceedings everything is considered that is in favour of the prisoner. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) dealt with his Amendment in his speech, and as he has been allowed that latitude, I shall be prepared to deal with the Amendment in my speech, if he will undertake not to move his Amendment in Committee, but if we are to have it all over again, I do not think that the House would want to hear my observations upon it twice. I very much appreciate the attitude taken up by those who, though bitterly opposed to the death penalty, will not seek to divide the House, and I very much hope that we may get the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I want to say a few words because of the intervention of the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone). I was somewhat doubtful, in discussing this Bill with my colleague the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and I was inclined to take the point of view of the Attorney-General that the intent to help the enemy governed

the Clause and made it absolutely proof against any wrongful decision in the court afterwards. I took that point of view in the discussion with my hon. Friend, but it seems from the debate that has taken place that the Attorney-General and myself are wrong. We have had the statement by the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and myself, because of the fact that we are anxious to carry on propaganda for peace, are aware that our propaganda for peace has the effect of helping the enemy, and that therefore our anxiety arises because we are aware of that fact.

The Attorney-General: To our mutual comfort, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) is not a court.

Mr. Stephen: That is just where I think the Attorney-General is making a mistake. The hon. Lady is a court. There is the possibility of her being one of the jury of 12 that would decide, and I intervened to say that I did not realise, when I argued this matter with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Shettleston, that there were people in this country whose minds were so unfair that they could come to a decision such as that to which the hon. Lady has evidently come with regard to propaganda like that which my hon. Friends and I have carried on with regard to peace.

Miss Rathbone: I do not suggest that propaganda of the kind that the hon. Member carries on ought to come under the Bill, but I was amused to note that he himself evidently felt uneasy lest it should be recognised that, in preaching to fellow countrymen that they should not fight in the present war, they were helping the enemy, and that it might be held by the court in future that he had shown an intention to help the enemy. The suggestion originally came from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He showed some doubt, or why should he have raised the point? I would not have raised it if he had not.

Mr. McGovern: The point was that I felt that certain Bills were interpreted in a certain way, and I had evidence of Acts being interpreted in that way by judges. Therefore I said that, no matter


what might be the intention, people would use this Measure in order to down those who were engaged on peace propaganda. I consider it to be the most patriotic duty of any citizen to try to end the war at the earliest possible moment. I believe that certain people on juries would need no direction but their prejudice to enable them to decide the fate of such a person.

Mr. Stephen: I think that the intervention of the hon. Lady and of myself ought to bring home to the Attorney-General that there is some difficulty still in connection with this Clause. I accept his assurance. I listened to the Home Secretary when he made his speech on the Second Reading, and I was sure that it was the intention of the Government that there should be nothing in the way of interference with the propaganda of people who took a very strong pacifist point of view, but the very intervention of the hon. Lady shows the danger that there is in this matter. I would say to her that I have no feeling whatever that our propaganda is a help to the enemy. I think that the propaganda carried on by the hon. Lady herself in the past in so many of her statements was of much more assistance to the enemy than any of the peace propaganda that has been carried on by my hon. Friends and myself. I had no feeling myself that any such propaganda could be held by any reasonable person such as would be on a jury to be of help to the enemy. Evidently my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston was right and I was wrong in that respect, since the hon. Lady can take such a view.
I also would say this to the Attorney-General. The present trial procedure is archaic, and much of it is possibly due to the fact that the penalty is a very severe penalty. It is not only the sentence of death but also the ignominy and the hatefulness to be condemned not only to death, but to death as a traitor and as one who has been guilty of treason. All the shame that is attached to it has tended to make the procedure in a trial such as would allow the defence every possible opportunity of avoiding such a condemnation if the accused had not been guilty of the crime. It is as well that that should be borne in mind in the consideration of this Measure. I agree that any Government have to take steps to

deal effectively with the possibility of treachery and in keeping treacherous attempts from having any measure of success. It is a duty and a responsibility upon any Government to see that treachery is not allowed to develop in the country, but, at the same time, it is also necessary that the Government should see that, in putting a Measure through the House to deal with treachery, it could not be applied to innocent citizens who might become the victims of people of a strange mentality such as that which the hon. Lady has shown herself to possess.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I wish to refer to a matter which was mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the Attorney-General—the question of reference to courts-martial and the power of the Home Secretary to have members of His Majesty's Forces dealt with under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act or the Air Force Act by courts-martial have conducted many courts-martial during the course of my service, and I must say that, on the whole, I believe a court-martial to be a very fair court. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if it errs at all, it errs on the side of leniency, and that is not a very bad fault. But there are occasions where a culprit may be brought up before a gentleman who has not the slightest idea of the law. I am afraid the Attorney-General has not read the recommendations of the committee set up to consider the question of courts-martial.

The Attorney-General: It is because I have that report that I made my speech.

Sir W. Allen: I am much surprised at the statement which the Attorney-General has just made, because the report contains recommendations which entirely alter the position of courts martial. I say deliberately that I have seen courts martial that have not had, as members, a single representative with any knowledge of the law. We have been accustomed to call a certain individual the Judge Advocate-General. In fact, he may be neither a judge, nor an advocate, nor a general. That frequently happens. Then there is a gentleman, who conducts the case for the prosecution and who is called a Judge Advocate although he is neither a judge nor an advocate. These gentlemen will,


I have no doubt, exercise their common sense as the case may be presented to them, but without some knowledge of the law there is a possibility of a mistake being made. If 99 per cent. of the courts martial cases are satisfactory, and there is one which is unsatisfactory through someone being condemned to death by gentlemen who have no knowledge of the law, I think it is time that the Attorney-General took some action with regard to the recommendations of the committee which sat with reference to the alteration of the personnel of these courts martial. I have known cases of that kind myself, and it is because I have known these cases that I speak strongly.
I know of one case that was illegally judged by a court martial. That illegality was made apparent by men who had no knowledge of the law. Personally, if it were my own case, I would prefer to go opposite men who have some knowledge of the administration of British law. I have already stated that I do not wish to condemn Service courts martial. I believe that on the whole they act very legally and that the individuals brought before them do, as a rule, get very fair, common sense judgments, but if there is a case of an individual who is "crimed" and made to suffer the penalty of death, then I hold—and I do not believe the Attorney-General can dispute it—that some men at least on a court martial ought to know something of the law. They need not at the present moment, and I think it is high time, therefore, that the Attorney-General and the Government took into consideration the recommendations of the committee which considered changes of courts martial personnel.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Because of the many things which have been said and hinted at inside and outside this House I would like to make a few observations on this question. But before making them may I draw attention to the confusion in the minds of some Members as to what is the actual position in this country? The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) does not seem to understand that amendments of Regulations were passed on 9th May which permit of any paper publishing peace propaganda being put out of existence, the press being destroyed and those responsible for the propaganda

being sent to prison for seven years' penal servitude. She asked if power is to be taken to deal with propaganda. There is in these Regulations most terrible power to deal with the liberties of the people. It seems that some hon. Members have not read the amended Regulations.
To come to this Bill. Certain questions of loyalty have been raised. My conception of loyalty is not the same as that of representatives of the Bank of England or the big aristocratic landowners. Mine is different. I am prepared to say this: I may go to prison for being loyal to the people of this country, but I will never go to prison for being disloyal. I have a record, as my comrades have, for loyalty, and it is a record which I treasure. A speaker at a trade-union conference the other day deliberately stated that Communists were committing sabotage in factories. That can only be described as the slander of an unprincipled blackguard. I remember the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), myself, and a number of others being brought before the High Court in Edinburgh on a charge of inciting to riot and rioting. In the course of the riot some loose element in Glasgow did a bit of looting, so the prosecution decided to put across a dirty one and to the indictment added the charge of theft. Objection was taken to that, and the Judge in the case, Lord Scott Dixon, said: "These prisoners are faced with a very serious charge, a charge on which, if they are found guilty, heavy penalties may be imposed. But their moral character and their integrity are not in question." He ruled out this particular charge of the indictment. This was a judge who, when the fire and smoke had died away, was able to give a cool judgment, but we cannot expect, at a time like this, when every kind of political prejudice is aroused, the same cool judgment. We have, however, a right to protest with all the power we possess against any suggestion that our comrades in the factories would dream of committing such a crime. We seek to get the respect of the workers in the factories; it is our only hope of making progress, and you can never get the respect and confidence of your fellow workers if you are inefficient and lazy. In


the factories the men who are respected are those who keep good time, give good service, and in whom their fellow workers can place trust and confidence. We are revolutionaries. We are against the ruling class, but never in any circumstances can we be accused of criminal action.
This Bill is presumably against the Fifth Column. The Fifth Column in this country is now trying to shield itself by attacking the Communists and the pacifists. It is the Fifth Column who seek to destroy working-class organisations and the democratic forces within a country in order to prepare the way for Fascism. Take Austria, or Norway, or Denmark, or Holland. Of what was the Fifth Column composed in those countries? It was composed of Nazi agents and their associates in the ruling class. I challenge any hon. Member. You cannot give me one case where in any of these countries the Fifth Column was composed of anything other than Nazi agents and their associates in the ruling class. No representatives of the working-class movement were associated with them in any way. Take Seyes In quart in Austria; he was a typical bourgeois. Take Quisling in Norway; was he a representative of the working class? No, I am informed that he is a member of the moral rearmament group.

Mr. Mathers: I have heard that statement made before, and I have made inquiries about it of members of the Oxford Group and of those who have the information, and I am assured definitely that Quisling was never a member of the Oxford Group or associated with moral rearmament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): This gives me an opportunity of doing what I was about to do, and that is to tell the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that membership of any particular organisation is not affected by this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: But those who are associated with this kind of work will carry out the acts referred to in the Bill, and I want it to be clear that in no circumstances at any time have representatives of the working-class movement been associated with the Fifth Column, and that just as the bourgeoisie in other countries have been the close associates of the

Fascists, so they are in this country. That is where attention should be given, and not by attacking the Communists. In the negotiations which went on with the Soviet Union the ex-Prime Minister informed us that the Soviet Union made a proposal that action should be taken to stop indirect aggression—the work of the Fifth Column—and the ex-Prime Minister said that that would be interfering with the independence of small nations. Can you tell that to Belgium to-day, or to Norway, or to Holland or to Denmark? In these countries the Fifth Column has been at work, and those who advocated that policy in this country have not been ready to take action against the Fifth Column. I am told that Marylebone is the wealthiest, or the second wealthiest, borough in the country. It is full of Conservatives, big, prosperous Conservatives. It always has a Conservative council. Marylebone has a big, beautiful public hall. Will they agree to let their big public hall to the Communists? No. But a little over a year ago they let their big, beautiful public hall to the Nazis so that they could have a muster of their forces. They walked in and out of the front door in uniform as though they already owned London. Some of the Nazis who were there may still have their contacts with the Conservatives in Marylebone.
I suggest that all this talk about the Communists is part of the work of the Fifth Column to provide a shield for themselves. The Communist party will carry on and rally the masses of this country to put an end to the ruling class and extricate the people from this terrible situation. We understand the role of Hitler. Our comrades in Germany are in prisons and concentration camps. If anyone wants to read a condemnation of the ruling class of this country, they have only to read the pamphlet "The British case," by Lord Lloyd, with a preface by Lord Halifax. It is a terrible story of how the Fifth Column has been prepared to assist Hitler, if only he would fit in with their designs. I want to make it clear that I and my friends, as working-class revolutionaries, will do our utmost in the difficult circumstances for the welfare of the people and the masses of the workers. We shall carry on. Those who make these slanders against the Communists are only playing the game of the Fifth Column in this country. Our work will be done and will be continued to be


done in the open, directly against the ruling classes, in the interests of the people of this country.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

Clause 1.—(Death penalty for treachery.)

8.21 p.m.

Mr. E. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end, to add "or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years."
This Amendment, which I foreshadowed in my speech on the Second Reading, does not remove the death penalty from the Bill, but enlarges the power of the court by enabling it, wherever it thinks fit, to impose, in place of the death penalty, a very serious penalty of imprisonment. No one can say that a period of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years is a light penalty; it is a terribly heavy penalty. No one can feel that this grave offence which is being dealt with under the Bill would be lightly dealt with if it were punished by a sentence of that kind; but as has been pointed out, there will almost certainly be cases where, if the court had the power to inflict a penalty other than death, it would prefer to do so. As the Bill is drafted at present, the court would have no power to do so unless there was a subsidiary charge conjoined with the major charge which, under Clause 3 of the Bill, would enable the court to dismiss the major charge and convict on the minor charge. Unless two charges were brought at the same time the court would have no option, if the prisoner were found guilty, but to pronounce sentence of death.
I do not want to enlarge on possible cases, but hon. Members will be able to think of many where a serious offence must be stopped, but yet where we would not wish to have the death penalty imposed. I will mention one instance where clearly there would be technical guilt under Clause 1. If efforts were made by a German in this country to release

German military or naval prisoners from an internment camp and enable them to get back to their own country, clearly that would be something which this country would be justified in doing its utmost to prevent; but at the same time, I think it would not be right to inflict the extreme penalty of death on people who, although guilty under the law of this country, were doing what was a natural and human thing from their point of view in helping their own countrymen. I give that as one instance. We can recall how in the last war British subjects were executed for offences under German military law and where if imprisonment, instead of the death penalty, had been inflicted, a great deal of bitterness and ill-feeling would have been prevented and a great moral injustice avoided. I am very anxious that we should make no mistake of that sort. I am sure that would not be the intention of the Government, but we can make doubly sure by giving to the court, under this Bill, the additional power, if it so decides, to impose a sentence of a long term of imprisonment instead of a sentence of death. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: I beg to support the Amendment.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I wish to support the Amendment. At the present time, in connection with our ordinary criminal procedure, there are judges and many other people connected with the administration of the law who think that there should be the possibility of an alternative punishment to the death penalty. In many cases where sentence of death has been passed within a few hours, or sometimes within a few days there has been a reprieve. We have this evening an opportunity of inserting in this Measure a very necessary reform by giving the court an opportunity to come to a decision as to whether a crime is one of the first or the second degree. I believe that the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), in wishing to insert in this Bill the alternative of a long period of imprisonment, wishes to do something which, whether or not it is agreed to on this occasion, will find its way on to the Statute Book in years to come. Therefore, I plead for very serious consideration of this Amendment by the Government. I ask them to give those


who will administer the law as far as this Bill is concerned the opportunity, where there are mitigating circumstances, of deciding—instead of waiting even for a reprieve or an act of clemency from the sovereign—to impose an alternative sentence, and to make the punishment fit the crime.

8.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I do not intend on this Amendment to argue, as has been argued to some extent this evening, the whole question of capital punishment, but I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey). I would remind hon. Members that this Bill is designed to deal only with the most serious cases of the base crime of treachery. Less serious cases either of sabotage or espionage, or of acts done with intent to assist the enemy, can be dealt with under Defence Regulations 2 (a) and 2 (b). This Bill is intended to deal only with cases of the most serious character. Unless there is the clearest possible evidence of all the most serious elements in the charge, undoubtedly the prosecution will exercise the right under Clause 3 to join with the more serious charge other charges under the Defence Regulations to which I have referred. Of course that will always be done if there is a doubt in the mind of the prosecutor as to whether a conviction for the more serious charge is likely to be obtained.
The real argument against accepting the Amendment is that it would be contrary to British judicial procedure and to our tradition to give any alternative to the death penalty, and to place upon a judge the intolerable burden of deciding which of those alternatives to choose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate reminds me that there is no precedent in the whole of our statute law for placing a burden of that kind upon a judge. As I have said, the Bill is designed to meet only the most serious cases imaginable. If the charge is not of that character, other charges can be joined for which smaller penalties are provided by the Defence Regulations and there is always in reserve the prerogative of mercy which is exercised by the Crown through the Home Secretary. On those grounds, I am bound to advise the Com-

mittee that this Amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I wish to put a question regarding a particular type of case which has not, I think, been referred to this afternoon but is very much in the public mind at present. All over the country Local Defence Volunteers are about to be enrolled and a Measure on the subject is shortly to be considered in the House. All sorts of people will come forward to join this volunteer corps. Some will be suitable and some will be unsuitable; some of those who seek to join will probably be members of the Fifth Column and, in fact, traitors. Indeed, I know of one case already in which an intimation has been passed on to the Home Office and I have no doubt that the person concerned will not be enrolled. There may be other cases in which men of that type will offer themselves and be accepted. These men may use their opportunities inside the Defence Force, not for but against this country in a treacherous manner. How will such men be affected by the provisions of this Bill?

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member has cited a case, with which he says he is familiar, of a known traitor. I hope that he has sent particulars of that case to the proper quarter.

Mr. Mander: Mr. Mander indicated assent.

Mr. Peake: In that event, it undoubtedly can and will be dealt with. In regard to his point about the new Defence Force, I understand that members of that Force will be members of His Majesty's Forces and will therefore be able to avail themselves of the proviso in Clause 2 (1, a) and exercise the option of being tried by court martial. I do not know whether that meets the point which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Mander: They would be liable? They would definitely come under this Measure?

Mr. Peake: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.37 p.m.

Dr. Little: As this Bill applies to Northern Ireland perhaps I may be allowed the opportunity to make some observations on the Third Reading. I do not think there is any part of the Kingdom in which this Measure will be more welcomed than in Northern Ireland and I do not know of any part of the United Kingdom in which there are better preparations at hand for dealing with traitors and those who would betray the State than in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Government have had the strength and courage to introduce this Measure. To me pacifists, Fascists, Communists, enemy agents and all the rest of that ilk are nuisances. The Minister of Health cannot deal with them and so I am glad that the Minister of Home Security is to deal with them. The Bill will meet a greatly felt need. I felt during the Debate this afternoon that if an inhabitant of a celestial clime had come into our midst he would have thought that Britain was passing through the piping days of peace. We have had an academic Debate on the abolition of capital punishment at a time when we are engaged in a struggle for our very existence and the existence of the State.
This Bill, as I say, meets a much felt need and a great deal of the talk that we have heard in the House this evening does not carry us very far. I certainly felt that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) went very far in bringing in Ireland. I have no doubt that he went to Ireland to see what he wanted to see, but there was another side and a far more gruesome side of the picture which he did not see. These half truths are far worse than downright untruths. We know what we came through in Ireland and we in the north are prepared to deal with traitors. We know they sought to betrayus and that the work is still going on, but thank God we have got them in subjection. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shettleston is not in his place, because I would say to him that if he will come across to Ireland with my hon. and gal-

lant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) and myself we will show him round and let him see some things that may open his eyes. He would not then probably be so keen on making pietistical statements about making peace with Hitler. How can you make peace with a mad dog? There is no way to deal with him except to put him out of existence, and you cannot deal with traitors if you wear kid gloves.
I support the Third Reading of the Bill because I think it necessary. The circumstances of the hour demand it. If ever there was a Bill which should commend itself to this House in its long existence, it is this one. I support it, secondly, because the Bill meets an urgent need. It is a pressing need that traitors and treacherous people should be dealt with with a highhand. You find down through the ages, in both sacred and secular history, that the treacherous man, the traitor, was the man who was abominated. There is no name in the world which is abominated more than the name of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Master for a few pieces of silver. I have no sympathy with these people who come into our country and remain in our midst for the purpose of betraying us in a time when we are face to face with the greatest struggle Britain has ever had to encounter. I support the Bill because it makes for the safety of the country. We know what happened in Norway and Denmark and the other countries, and we must see to it that these traitors and treacherous people are put aside. Lastly, I would say that the Bill is a warning to traitors that they must either leave the country or their blood will be on their own heads. The Old Book says:
He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong that he hath done.
Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.
I hope that the Measure will be placed on the Statute Book of this realm and that the Home Secretary will bring down a strong iron fist and put these traitors aside, so that we may face our enemy as a united people and by the grace of God and by His help defeat those who are in battle array against us.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I did not intend to speak on the Third Reading of this Bill, but after the volume of Mount Sinai from the other side I think


one should put the point of view of the lowly man of Nazareth. He did say to us to pray:
Our Father which art in heaven…Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us.
Ireland is not the only loyal spot in the British Isles. I can hear a voice from Scotland, but I was born in Wales, although I am a naturalised Yorkshireman. When the hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little) spoke with all his vengeance, I do not think, if I may say so, that it does very much good to the cloth he wears. The Home Secretary will manage this job all right without the hon. Member telling him how to get on with it. I only rose to protest against the way in which he delivered his speech on this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE (ARMED FORCES) BILL.

8.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that persons shall not be exempted from liability under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, by reason of their being members of the Local Defence Volunteers.
The urgency of the Bill is, I think, self-evident. It is obviously undesirable that the Local Defence Volunteer organisations should detract in any way from the rapidly expanding field Army. It is equally undesirable that men of military age should be debarred from serving as part-time volunteers until being called up. It is in order to meet these two difficulties that I ask leave to introduce this Bill. I understand that there are many Members in this House who would desire to discuss the functions of Local Defence Volunteers, but that, I think, would not be in order under this Bill. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would suggest that if we can get the Bill through, we can then discuss the broader questions on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, if that is agreeable to other Members. I hope that leave will be given to introduce the Bill.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that other Members in the House

must have seen that this Bill is very narrow indeed, and that it may be difficult to discuss the matters which many of us have in mind. I am sure that Members would wish to know the composition of the Defence Force, its relation to A.R.P. and its numbers and functions. After looking closely at this matter I am satisfied that we cannot have a proper discussion along these lines so we shall agree to the suggestion which, I think, is the only way out, namely, to discuss these matters on the Adjournment and to allow the Bill to go through as quickly as possible. On the Adjournment we could then have an unlimited discussion.

8.47 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in connection with this Bill? As I understand it, it will be possible to have a full discussion on the constitution, etc., of the Local Defence Volunteers on the Motion for the Adjournment. The point I had in mind and about which I am in some difficulty is that I do not believe that anyone ought to be in the Force who is already liable for service under the existing Act. What I wish to know is whether in the discussion that we shall have on the Adjournment on the constitution of the Force it will be possible, if the views expressed in the House support it, to move that men liable for military service under the existing Act should not be eligible for service in the Volunteer Forces.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. and gallant Member's point. It would obviously be in order on the Adjournment to discuss the composition of the Local Defence Volunteer Forces and who could be members of them, but I am not quite sure if I am right in understanding that the hon. and gallant gentleman wishes to argue that there was no need for such a Force?

Sir A. Southby: My contention is that there is really no need for this Bill, because nobody should be able to be in the Local Defence Volunteer Force who is already eligible for service in the military Forces. Their duty lies elsewhere, but if it is decided, and we pass this Bill, that these young men should be able to go into the Defence Forces pro tem and that they should be precluded from joining the voluntary Defence Forces—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can discuss that on the Adjournment, but he cannot discuss it on this Bill.

Mr. Tinker: I am at a loss to know why this Bill is necessary. I always thought that the Armed Forces had first claim on anyone. I would have expected that the demands of the Armed Forces of the Crown superseded anything else, no matter whether men joined the Local Defence Volunteer Force or not. I am rather sorry that the Under-Secretary of State did not give us fuller information as to why this Bill is necessary.

Sir E. Grigg: I propose to do that on Second Reading. This is only the introduction of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Eden, Sir Edward Grigg, and Mr. Assheton.

NATIONAL SERVICE (ARMED FORCES) BILL,

to provide that persons shall not be exempted from liability tinder the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, by reason of their being members of the Local Defence Volunteers,
presented accordingly, read the First time; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 48.]

8.51 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who expressed just now some doubts about the necessity of the Bill, realised that the Local Defence Volunteers are themselves part of the Armed Forces of the Crown. What we are trying to provide in this Bill are two things. The first is that there shall be no question of reducing the strength of the classes that come under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act owing to the fact that some members of those classes have enlisted in the Local Defence Volunteers. The second is to enable the volunteers to serve for a time as part-time volunteers until their calling-up time comes. There are many of them who would like to do part-time service while they are in their civilian jobs and who would be barred from doing so unless we passed this Bill.

8.53 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I feel some diffidence in speaking a second time to the House to-day, but my excuse is that for 4½ years throughout the last war I was, for better or for worse, administrator of a force of a similar character to this. It may be remembered that in November, 1914, there was a rumour of a possible raid, which fortunately did not mature, but the Government, at the instigation of Lord Kitchener, charged a committee of four, of which I was a member, to organise a force something of the character of that contemplated under this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must call the hon. Baronet's attention to the fact that this Bill does not deal with the formation of this force. I am not sure whether the hon. Baronet was here when the Minister moved the Motion that leave be given to introduce the Bill, when he explained that general remarks on the volunteers could be made at a later opportunity.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That Mr. Ede, Sir William Jowitt and Miss Wilkinson be discharged from the Committee on National Expenditure, and Mr. Leach, Mr. Robert Morrison and Mr. Ridley be added to the Committee."—[Mr. Boulton.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

8.57 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I understand that it would be agreeable to the House if I made some statement about the organisation of the Local Defence Volunteers. It had been the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make that statement,


and he asked me to make apologies to the House on his behalf for his absence, as the House will understand that critical decisions may have to be taken at any moment. The decision to raise this Force was taken on 12th May. My right hon. Friend made his broadcast on 14th May. By 20th May over 250,000 volunteers had come forward, and in many districts units had been formed and rifles and ammunition already issued. The process has been going on steadily since 20th May, and the number is now much greater than 250,000. In a very few days the process will, I hope, be complete. The House will feel that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the organisers who have undertaken this work and also to the patriotism of the volunteers who have come forward. It is a remarkable sign of the readiness of this country to come forward when it is called upon. We have called upon a hitherto untapped source of defence, and this experience shows what reserves of patriotism we possess.
The Local Defence Volunteer organisation is based upon the military organisation and is organised by areas like the military commands. Each area has been sub-divided into zones, and each zone is sub-divided into groups, the groups into companies, and the companies into platoons and sections. There is a regular chain of command the whole way down from the area to the section. At the head of each zone and group are voluntary organisers, and they and the officers chosen to raise the sections are, like the volunteers themselves, unpaid. The whole thing is voluntary. Military area commanders, after consultation with the lord-lieutenants of counties, for whose co-operation we are grateful, and also with the chairmen of county councils and other local authorities of that kind, have appointed voluntary area organisers, who in turn have appointed the zone organisers, and so on down the chain. I repeat that all members of the force, organisers, commanders and volunteers, are unpaid. It is an entirely voluntary service. There is, however, some need to meet out-of-pocket expenses which we cannot expect the individual in all cases to bear, and arrangements have been made to meet those expenses in the following way. Free petrol or third class railway fares are to be allowed for official journeys by area, zone and group

organisers. Office expenditure is also allowed for up to £10—for postage, stationery, telephones, and so on. It is £10 for each unit.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: For how long?

Sir E. Grigg: I am dealing with the period during which we are raising the force. The method of carrying on afterwards we shall have to settle. There will also bean allowance of a half-crown per rifle for group organisers. With regard to compensation for disabilities incurred in the service, volunteers will get it on the same scale as for private soldiers. Uniform will consist of denim overalls and field service caps, or civilian clothes with khaki arm bands stitched to the sleeve, having the letters "L.D.V." stencilled on the arm bands in white. Volunteers wearing civilian clothes with arm bands will be issued with field service caps. Already 90,000 overalls have been issued, 250,000 field service caps are available, and a similar number of arm bands are on order, so that I hope that, so far as dress is concerned, the Local Defence Volunteers will be fully equipped immediately.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: One assumes that they will be issued with tin hats?

Sir E. Grigg: With the field service cap. The Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces is responsible for the operational control, for the organisation and the training of the volunteers throughout the country. Now I come to the functions of the volunteers, and since there have been many questions on this point, I should like to make it clear that the volunteers are a reinforcement of existing organisations for home defence. There is already in existence a very considerable organisation for home defence. We not only have many divisions in various stages of training in this country, but we also have our home defence battalions, and we have other trained troops in this country. The Local Defence Volunteers are, therefore, a reinsurance, an extra security, and will, I believe, be invaluable. They will be invaluable in particular in two ways. In the first place, they will prevent the dispersal of first-line troops in small packets. The first duty of the Army is to keep its divisions intact, for service here or overseas, as may be required, and they cannot be kept intact if men are dispersed for guard duties all over the


country. The second duty of the Army is to press on with the training and the equipment of new troops, and training, or advanced training, at any rate, becomes impossible if formations are broken up for various purposes of local defence. Dispersal for local defence would mean, in fact, the complete immobilisation of trained divisions and would also bring advanced training to a halt. The Local Defence Volunteers can, therefore, render absolutely invaluable service, alike to the Army and the country, by co-operating with home defence battalions in freeing the organised divisions of the Army from the need for meeting the immediate needs of local defence.
They have another function to perform, a very important function, which is described to some extent by the name popularly given to them of "parashootists". They are wanted to deal with small enemy parties landed from the air. We have seen what the effect of the landing of small groups by parachute or aircraft has been in other countries, and it is important to organise means of local action against the measures which these small parties landed in various places may take. The three main purposes for which the Local Defence Volunteers are wanted are these: First, observation and information. We want the earliest possible information, either from observation posts or from patrols, as to landings. The second purpose is to help, in the very earliest stages, in preventing movement by these enemy parties landed from the air by blocking roads, by denying them access to means of movement, motors and so on, and by seeing that they are hemmed in as completely as possible from the moment they land. Their third purpose is to assist in patrolling and protecting vulnerable spots, of which there is a great number everywhere, particularly in certain parts of the country where the demands for local guard duties are really greater than the present forces can meet.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does that include aerodromes and tunnels?

Sir E. Grigg: They are very different things. Aerodromes are specially protected by measures taken by the General Officer Commanding the Home Forces, in co-operation with the Royal Air Force. In regard to tunnels, home defence battalions are already doing part of that work.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the Local Defence Volunteers take it over?

Sir E. Grigg: I hope they will take over a part of it. But I do not want to suggest that it is the duty of the War Office to issue instructions in detail as to how these Local Defence Volunteers should be used. We can say in general outline how we want them to be used. It is the duty of the area command to say how they can most effectively meet their purpose in each area. If we started giving instructions in detail the whole organisation would be at once tied up in voluminous red tape. Their local function is far better left at the discretion of the local commands.
In regard to the method of operation I am sure the House understands that the Local Defence Volunteers will be soldiers under military command and that they are not free to move about the country as they please as individuals. They will naturally, therefore, act in all sections under their commander, unless they are detailed singly, in pairs or in small parties, for individual duty of any kind. All soldiers know that the great danger to one's own troops arises from inadequately co-ordinated action in twilight or in darkness. The danger hours in this country in regard to air invasion are dusk at sunset and dusk at dawn. We do not want to run the unnecessary risk of a patrol of Local Defence Volunteers making mistakes and causing confusion which even the best trained troops sometimes cause when they are acting in the dark or in the dusk.
It is, therefore, generally understood that these Defence Volunteers will be acting in sections under command, and that it is not desirable that they should act as a rule as individuals roving at large. It is well that this point should be made clear. I am sure that many Members remember incidents in the last war of the kind which arose when armed parties without clear instructions wandered about in a fading light. There have already been, not in this country but elsewhere, examples of what may occur, and we want to guard against that as far as possible. Let me repeat again, therefore, that the action of these volunteers will as far as possible be in organised sections under their own commanders and that they are all as soldiers to act under the orders of the commanders of their sections.

Colonel Wedgwood: That does not necessarily mean that they will not have their arms when they are not on duty?

Sir E. Grigg: I will come to the question of arms now. As to the supply of rifles, there are plenty of rifles in the country, but it is not desirable for more reasons than one to issue rifles promiscuously to all volunteers unless special reasons exist. The question of whether they are to be issued to individuals or kept in one centre is a matter of local discretion with which we do not wish to interfere. It will depend upon the circumstances of the case Broadly speaking, we do not want a too great dispersion of these arms. Normally the volunteers will be operating in sections and there must be places where the arms and ammunition are served out While I lay that down as a general principle, in certain places it may be necessary to issue arms to individuals or to people living at a distance.

Colonel Wedgwood: In factories, for instance?

Sir E. Grigg: Obviously there will be a central armoury and there is no difficulty there. The difficulty arises in the more lonely places. That is why I think it is essential to leave the discretion to local commanders in this country. While that discretion remains it is important to lay down the principle that arms are not to be more widely dispersed than the circumstances necessitate. I come now to the question of training for the actual duties which this organisation is to perform.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but would he be good enough to indicate that his hon. Friend will reply to the discussion?

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. Friend will certainly be prepared to take up any question that may be raised. With regard to training, it will be entirely under the general officer commanding the whole Force and the area commanders concerned. The central defence organisation is to be under a military commander in each case. I have been asked a question about motor cars, because many people are anxious to act as volunteer despatch riders or motor volunteers, or to help to move people from place to place. Those offers are greatly appreciated. The answer is that they should at once get into touch with the local area command. Any officer is prepared to assist anybody

who is prepared to help. I have been questioned about shot guns, whether they will be needed, and, if so, what would be the kind of ammunition. They can be used provided that they are not used with soft-nosed bullets. Shot guns are legal weapons.

Mr. Price (Gloucester, Forest of Dean): What about sporting rifles?

Sir E. Grigg: They can be used, provided that it is not with soft-nosed bullets. I have already received a good many letters about the Defence Volunteers in factories. There are two points to be considered. We want adequate protection for all factories and particularly for the vital factories, but, in the second place, we do not want men engaged on production in these factories to render any service which will reduce their production. They must be able to work and to sleep. They will be doing much more for the country by being essential producers than by undertaking extra duties of this kind. In order to make sure that the defensive force is adequate and that we do not handicap factory production, we are appointing a security officer, who is a volunteer, with military experience in every factory, to give advice and see that the protection is adequate while the real productive work of the factory is carried on.
I think I have given a broad picture of the functions and of the organisation of this new Force. I should like to repeat the sense of gratitude that we feel in the War Office, and I am sure also in this House, to those who within a few days have undertaken the organisation of the Force, and our appreciation of the spirit of the volunteers who have come forward in these vast numbers. As a matter of fact, the only trouble has been the overwhelming response, and it is still going on. It is inexhaustible, and I am beginning to be afraid that we shall have to suspend it for a time here and there. But I should like to assure those who are told, as they may be, that there is no more room, that that is purely a temporary state of affairs, and we hope to be able to find room in due course for everybody who is prepared to serve the country in this way.

Sir Edward Campbell: Will there be plenty of opportunity for practising?

Sir E. Grigg: Training, as I have said, is in the hands of the local command, and I do not think I can go beyond that. There may be more opportunities in some places and less in others, but I hope that the opportunities for training will be adequate.

Mr. Lunn: I would like to know whether ammunition for these rifles, sporting guns and shot guns, will be handed out indiscriminately, or whether it will be in capable hands, so that many of the people who are not holding a rifle will not be shot.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but I laid particular emphasis on the importance of issuing these rifles and the ammunition with discretion.

Mr. Lunn: I was in the House.

Sir E. Grigg: Of course, that applies equally to sporting rifles and shot guns.

Mr. Lunn: I was on a Firearms Committee and I know the risks.

Sir E. Grigg: A great many questions of other kinds have been addressed to me and I am sure that questions have been addressed to hon. Members. If they are questions of principle I shall be happy to answer them if hon. Members will bring them to me, but if they are questions concerning local organisation and local defence it is best to refer them to the local area commander, who is in the best position to give information of that kind. I have received letters saying that such and such a place is a vulnerable point and not adequately protected. A question of that kind should be taken at once to the area commander whose responsibility it is, and I am sure that much more satisfaction will be received and more rapidly in that way.

Mr. Cocks: Where can we get the addresses of the area commanders?

Sir E. Grigg: If hon. Members are unfamiliar with the manner with which the country is divided by the Military Command they will get the information at once by addressing themselves to the local defence commissioner.

Sir Robert Tasker: We are directed to go to the local police. They know nothing. Then one may ring up Scotland Yard, and one is directed to go to somebody somewhere else, who

says, "Who are you? What can I do?" and "We cannot do anything at the present moment." Some information should be issued on this point.

Sir E. Grigg: I am glad that hon. Members have raised that point. I did not realise that there was this difficulty as to who were the people to whom questions should be addressed. It would be quite easy to publish in the Press once again the names and addresses of the local regional defence commissioners, who can at once pass on the inquiries to the area command or the subordinate command, as the case may be. For another reason I would deprecate the asking of too many detailed questions in this House, not that I want to deny information to hon. Members, but that in regard to this organisation I do not want to broadcast too many details to the enemy. It is far better that hon. Members should satisfy themselves on all these points by going to the local authority and keeping the information or guidance that they may receive to themselves and those whom it may concern. That really is an important matter at the present time. The less information we give about our organisation and our measures the better for all of us.
I would like finally to express my gratitude to the House and to hon. Members opposite for passing with so much readiness the Motion which I introduced. We are living under conditions when imminent peril may descend upon us from the sky at any moment, in the dawn to-morrow or in the dusk to-morrow night—we cannot tell; and I think it is a tradition in this country that when we are placed in mortal danger of that kind not to talk but to act. I am sure the House appreciates the importance of action at the present time and that when hon. Members have useful questions to raise they will not raise them all here but will take them to the local authorities, where they will be settled satisfactorily at once without information being conveyed to those whom we are determined to defeat.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I think the House will appreciate now that the course we took with respect to the Bill was by far the wisest since my hon. Friend has had an opportunity of making that full statement, the value of which I


am sure the House will appreciate. The new body which has been raised is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, a tribute to the spirit of citizenship in this country, and I am sure that anyone who takes note of what has taken place within the last few days, of the large numbers in which these men have volunteered in these critical times, must feel proud of his fellow countrymen.
The hon. Gentleman has asked us not to ask too many questions, but there is one point I should like to raise. It is a well-known fact that the Regular soldier does not look too kindly upon the Territorial. The Territorial suffers in that respect. [Interruption.] There is no doubt about that, even to-day. I mention that, because I do not want this new volunteer body to be a kind of lost battalion. We want it to be not only respected by the citizens, but held in such respect by the rest of the Forces that there is perfect co-operation and liaison between their leaders. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for these men to do their job properly.

Sir E. Grigg: I am glad the hon. Member has raised that point, because it enables me to say at once, on behalf of the Regular Army, that the co-operation of these volunteers will be welcomed wholeheartedly. The Regular Army has many tasks to perform, and the co-operation and help which these volunteers will give in local and home defence will be absolutely invaluable. There need be no anxiety whatever as to the welcome and treatment which these volunteers will receive.

Mr. Lawson: I am much obliged for that statement. I made my statement deliberately. I know that the liaison at the top between the Defence Forces is perfect, but, coming down the scale, that co-operation and liaison are not so good as they might be. I was afraid that this new body might not have its proper place. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Warsaid that no establishment had been fixed, and that the numbers accepted would depend upon circumstances in each area. Does that mean that there is to be a covering of the whole country where it is really necessary? For instance, lonely moors are the kind of place where parachutists may land. Even in some great industrial areas there are populations scattered widely over fells and moors. Are there

to be sufficient men enlisted to cover the country thoroughly, or is enlistment to be only in a limited way? I ask that because something has come to my knowledge which gives me the impression that the volunteers are to be taken and used only in hundreds, when they ought to be used in thousands. I put this quite bluntly to the Under-Secretary, because this Volunteer Defence Force is in its early stages and I think we should make up our minds that we are meeting not only a need but a very urgent need, as is shown by what has happened in other countries in the last week or two. If this Force is to be organised on a meagre scale, it will neither meet the needs of the moment nor give that entire confidence to the civilian population which should be given.
This parachute business is a new thing which has come upon us, and we really have been slow to scent the danger. I hope that we are not going to be slow in dealing with it, and that we shall so organise this new Force as to be sure that they will deal adequately with the danger. The Under-Secretary has dealt with the question of training and arming, though I was not sure about the arming. Nobody wants to scatter arms about haphazard, but we do not want that to be made any excuse for delaying arming the Force in a proper way. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary state that they were getting to work with the training right away. The policy of taking ex-servicemen, who would not in many cases be taken out of the Force later on but would be permanent members of it, should be made the basis for the acceptance of volunteers. It is good to hear that there are volunteers of 17 years of age as well as of 60 years of age. I understand that some members of A.R.P., the Auxiliary Fire Service and of the heavy squads and the light squads formed for Civil Defence have been accepted and some have not. I do not think that there is a settled policy about that matter.

Sir E. Grigg: It is entirely in the hands of the A.R.P. authorities as to whom they are prepared to release. The instruction was clear on that point; it was not to recruit A.R.P. personnel unless their own authorities were prepared to release them.

Mr. Lawson: An attack by parachutists might be the preliminary of an attack


from the air, or the two might take place simultaneously, and in the latter case A.R.P. and Auxiliary Fire Service men might be much needed. But, on the other hand, there are volunteer A.R.P. and Auxiliary Fire Service men who are also ex-servicemen, and the policy of accepting ex-servicemen, so long as they are not full-time A.R.P. wardens or something of that kind, ought to be made the basis of enlistment for this volunteer service. There are special constables who are familiar with rifles and machine-guns, but they are not allowed to volunteer because of the fact that they are special constables. I am sure that the House very much appreciated the fact that the Secretary of State for War so quickly responded to public sentiment upon this matter and asked for volunteers. The country was very satisfied and has been very much cheered by the number of volunteers. Do not let the War Office cramp them either as far as numbers are concerned, the use of them, or their proper treatment.

9.41 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I will not keep the House very long, because there is a number of other speakers, and I would very much like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was recently Secretary of State for War, to give us his opinions. My excuse for intervening is, as I said a little earlier, that for four years in the last war I was responsible for the administration of a similar force. In November, 1914, there were rumours of a raid, and Lord Kitchener appointed Lord Desborough, General Sir O'More Creagh, and myself to organise what he called a guerilla force. He designed the "G.R." armlet, which was familiar for the greater part of that war and which got for the force the name of Gaudeous Wrecks. The armlet was more permanent—I have listened with great patience to the Under-Secretary, and when we come here to speak, I wish he would listen. He has already had a large part of the time of the House and may perhaps have this private conversation later. I was saying that the armlet designed by Lord Kitchener was of a more permanent character than the one which the War Office now suggests. It is important to have an armlet which is not easily copied, especially when you hear about Quislings and so on. If you have an armlet which can be easily identified,

you do ask for imitation, and I would put it to the hon. Gentleman that the armlet should be of such a character that it is not easily copied—

Mr. G. Griffiths: Tattooed?

Sir P. Harris: Really, this is a serious matter, and it is not a matter to be funny about. The hon. Gentleman is a great humourist, but he might reserve his humour for another occasion. We were responsible in the early months of the war for the issue of these armlets and the administration of the force. At one time it consisted of 1,000,000 men, and we found that the best unit organisation was the county. We made use of the Lord Lieutenant and to some extent the Territorial Associations. The important privilege of carrying a rifle does require proper organisation and training. As a result of some months' experience of the last war, regulations in great detail were drawn up by my association to deal with every possible contingency and emergency connected with the organisation of a force of this character. For instance, there was the difficulty of rank and badges of rank and the whole series of military titles was designed to differ from those of the Army. These ranks were approved by the War Office.

Sir E. Grigg: I wish to interrupt the hon. Baronet only in order to apologise for my quite unintended discourtesy and to assure him that I have the fullest particulars about the force in which he played so distinguished a part in the last war.

Sir P. Harris: I am glad to hear that. All that I can say is that my services are at the disposal of my hon. Friend. I do not want a job—my time is fully occupied—but if I can give him the advantage of my experience during those four years, I shall be glad. I want to be sure that the time of the War Office is economised. When the present Minister of Information was Secretary of State for War I communicated with him on the subject of preparing plans for the creation of a Force of this kind on the outbreak of war. He assured me that a Force of this kind would not be required. I also communicated with the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on similar lines, and he brushed the matter aside as being quite unsuitable for modern conditions. I think the two right hon. Gentle-


men were unwise. In war-time you want to organise and utilise every man who is ready and willing to be trained and to learn the use of a rifle as part of an organised force, and I am glad, although it is rather late in the day, that the Government now propose to do something of this kind.
I also hope that this organisation will not be limited to particular areas. Every encouragement should be given to every village and town to have a unit of this Force. In the last war we found that some of the most efficient units were in the countryside, where there were few counter-attractions, and where old soldiers and officers were willing to give their time to the training of these men. We also found that a great many men were exempt from military service because of their essential occupations; just as they are at the present time. These men were not only able but willing and anxious to do some service in the defence of their country. In our regulations they had to sign a form stating that they were not using this service in order to exempt them from their obligations to the Army, and I assume that my hon. Friend is making a similar provision.
My own opinion is that the Government would have been wiser to have revived the Volunteer Act of 1916, and the previous Acts dating back to 1863. That would have met the necessities of the case much more effectively than the present proposal. These Acts cover almost every problem; and in almost every emergency we have had to go back to the principle of a part-time Volunteer Force. Once again in an emergency we have to revive it. I hope there will not be too much red tape. There will have to be properly trained military units. We cannot have men running about wildly; that means anarchy and chaos and would do more harm than good. There must be properly organised and trained units, under proper discipline, and as long as there is not too much red tape and every encouragement is given to local enthusiasm and experience, I believe this Force will be a success. I shall be pleased to give what knowledge I have to assist the hon. Member to make this Force a success.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would not like to say anything which at this

moment would embarrass my hon. and gallant Friend, who has given us so lucid an explanation of these new proposals, or the Government, but it is better to say what one feels in advance of a calamity rather than to say it afterwards. My criticism—if it be criticism—of this Force is that it is neither one thing nor the other. It is neither a Regular Force nor an amateur Force. If we have to meet the contingency of an invasion, it will be a serious matter, and those who have to face the incoming troops, whether they be directly landed or landed by parachute, should be part of the proper military organisation of the country. Before the war we found it necessary to introduce the compulsory system. We did not do so because we preferred that system, for sentimentally we were attached to the voluntary system, and we knew that our people were ready to present themselves. It was efficiency that caused us to depart from the voluntary system, because we wished to have full-time soldiers prepared to meet the strongest foe that this country has ever had to face.
If we have made errors in the past, they have been errors of inadequate preparation. We have waited until a calamity came upon us before realising its full magnitude. When Norway was invaded we completely under-estimated the situation. We sent a small number of troops to meet a large number of troops. Hitler despatched to that country a far greater army than was necessary to achieve his purpose. He sent 100,000 men or more. But our conception was that we could discharge the task, if we could discharge it at all, with about 4,000 men. That was an under-estimate. Then we heard that Hitler was landing troops by parachute, and everywhere we read, "This new device, this stunt, is a complete failure." But it was not a failure, and a small detachment at Narvik is still holding out against superior British forces, and presumably being nourished to some extent by parachute.
When the invasion of Holland occurred, we saw how serious was this new menace. I am not saying this, I beg my hon. Friend to believe, by way of criticism. I am only trying to be constructive before the event. Hitler is a man who never undertakes an operation unless he has adequately and completely prepared for it. The surprise is caused to those who have not had the imagination to see that he will


do the thing, if he does it at all, upon a full and complete scale. If this country is to be invaded, for the first time since 1066, it will be invaded by troops who, however small in number, will be specially selected and trained for the task which they have to do. The troops of this Force are not specially selected and trained; they are volunteers who are going to give some spare time to this job, who are not organised—

Sir E. Grigg: Sir E. Grigg rose—

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not wish to over state the case, but I am presenting a serious argument. Hitler's troops will be heavily armed with machine guns, sub-machine guns and grenades, and the people who are to have the first contact with them are these volunteers who are to have the partial use of a rifle or in some cases the whole use of a rifle. I say that that is not fair. It is not fair to those men, and it is not fair to this country. Time is of the essence of the whole matter. If there is any delay in dealing with these forces, they concentrate; they destroy bridges, they destroy electric plant, they disorganise telephonic communications. Those who are to have the first contact with them should be the best troops we can in the circumstances provide. This is by no manner of means a sideshow. The very best trained troops we have are worthy to be employed, and the commander of this Force should be, as I understand he will be, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Home Forces. I have no doubt, because he is a very competent general, that he is—

Sir E. Grigg: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I would only say, in regard to one of his remarks, that he had greater opportunity of using prevision and acting upon it than I have had. Apart from that, I think it is an improper assumption to make that it is our purpose to meet these troops of the enemy, as he says first-line, highly trained, highly equipped troops, with partially trained forces here. That is not the case. He knows better than anybody that we have a large supply of highly trained troops in this country. It is only to reinforce purely local defence that the Local Defence Volunteers are intended. The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the strength of this country at a dangerous moment, by taking the line he has taken just now.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I very much resent that. I think that those remarks by the hon. Gentleman would look very foolish if the worse contingency should befall. I am trying to be helpful while there is yet time. It cannot be denied that we have, hitherto, under-estimated the strength of Hitler. It cannot be denied that Hitler prepares on the most adequate scale for what he undertakes. Nor can it be denied that we have to meet the possibility of invasion by these troops, whether they land directly or by parachute, and the case which I am putting to the Government is that the whole forces to be arrayed against them, should be Regular Forces.

Sir E. Grigg: They are.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Then the whole case for this Force falls to the ground.

Sir E. Grigg: No.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: This is a new Force destined to meet a new danger. Obviously, trained forces will be used against parachute troops, but these are to form the advance guard, the contact troops, the people who are to be on patrol and who may meet the first impact.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I want to be clear about what he is proposing, because, as he says, this is a very important matter. Is he suggesting that highly trained troops should be dispersed all over the country, to be available wherever parachutists land? That appears to be the burden of his argument.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I certainly say that. I say that our troops should be so located and should be so re-located at this moment, to meet, as far as humanly possible, a very pressing and new danger. I certainly suggest that the Regular troops should be prepared for this new contingency and that all training units should be so sited that they can render the greatest possible assistance. Of course, even with your new Force you cannot cover every inch of the ground, but under proper battalion organisation you can cover as much as is humanly possible. I then say—I had reached this point when I was interrupted—that these men who land, if they land at all, will be armed with machine-guns, sub-machine-guns and grenades or incendiary bombs; that our men should be similarly armed; that


the machine guns should be employed and that these persons, whoever they may be, who have to meet the danger, should be trained in those forms of arms. I do not deal now with the question of demolition, but clearly, these people may have to do demolition work and should be provided with the proper instruments with which to do it.
My purpose in rising was not to deal completely with all the measures that can be taken, and should be taken, to meet this danger, but really to say to the Government that I think it will be found, as it was found before the war, that the proper way to meet a military danger is by a complete, full-time, disciplined military organisation. The whole purpose of our opening discussion to-day was to lead to such a conclusion. The first Bill which was introduced in the House this afternoon, to meet the serious situation which has arisen, claimed the right to use everybody, person and property, in this time of great danger. It was not to obtain service on a voluntary basis, because we were told that that would not do any more.

Sir P. Harris: Are there not hundreds of thousands of men working in factories who cannot be spared for full-time military service, and is it not useful to train them throughout the country so that they will be ready to assist the more fully trained forces?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not regard this matter as a side-show. I regard it as a primary military duty, and the first and most pressing of our military duties. One naturally welcomes the co-operation of all citizens, and one cannot praise it too highly. It was a splendid response to have 250,000 volunteers. That expresses the spirit of the country, but it must be organised under a full-time military system of discipline, and the commander must know exactly where he stands in view of this pressing danger. I only want to say that this Measure does not seem to me to be adequate. It seems an embarrassment that at this time when the danger is almost upon us we should have to institute an entirely new system. I am perfectly convinced that you are not going to beat Hitler by half measures.

10.3 p.m.

Sir A. Southby: I listened with amazement to the speech which has just been

delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. If it be, and it is, our primary duty, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to provide an adequately trained and equipped force in this country to meet a danger like this, the question which arises in my mind and the minds of other Members is: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman do it? The fact is that vital years were wasted, and equipment vital for this purpose was never provided. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to come down to the House of Commons at the present time and to complain because this volunteer force has to be raised now in a time of great emergency to repair a deficiency for which he was responsible during his period of office.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am very sorry the discussion should take any personal turn at a time when we are all seriously trying to make our contribution. I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend, in the hope that it will dispose of any personal elements in the discussion, that I was responsible before the war for introducing a measure of conscription and after the war a National Service Bill which did give the country the right to call up the whole community in age groups, and, therefore, the whole system is in existence.

Sir A. Southby: Be that as it may, no particular provision was made for this danger, which should have been foreseen by those who were in control at the War Office at the time. I would like to join with the hon. Member who spoke from the Government Bench, and opened this discussion, in paying a tribute to those volunteers who have come forward in such a splendid way. I am bound to say that their splendid response did not meet with the reward it should have, namely, by the immediate and adequate provision of arms and munitions to enable them to carry out their duties. From all sides one hears the story of men who came forward to enrol their names, and after their names had been taken they heard nothing more.
It was not until during the last 48 hours that any effort has been made to provide them with weapons. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that this matter was vital and urgent. Speed is of the essence of the contract, and it is essential that this Force should be constituted as quickly as possible. It


is not right to suggest that it is to be used only as a kind of patrol. It may have to meet with parachute attack and must deal with it at the first moment. Experience on the Continent has shown that unless the parachute troops are dealt with immediately the danger is that they will consolidate their position and make it much more difficult to turn them out.
If this Force is to be of any use, it must not only be adequately organised but adequately equipped. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the least good asking men armed with shot guns to compete with men armed with the latest automatic weapons. Parachute troops come down with hand grenades, sub-machine guns, pistols, rifles, and even flame-throwers. These volunteers, if they are to be of any use, must deal with the first attack of parachutists before the Regular troops who will ultimately deal with the attack come up. It is idle to suggest that they will be adequately equipped if they have shot guns, and it is stupid to suggest that they should be armed with a variety of sporting rifles. They must be armed with Service rifles firing Service ammunition. It is no good if an attack takes place on a dark night in a wood for men to be armed with sporting guns—Mauser rifles, Manlichers and 303 rifles, all using different ammunition. The confusion which would result would be appalling. These volunteers must be armed with the best arms they can be given. They will need automatic sub-machine guns, grenades and rifles.
I rather deprecate the fact that no immediate use was made of the organised ex-service men who could have been provided by the British Legion. It would have had one great advantage. In the Legion everybody knows his next door neighbour, and it is essential that nobody should get into the Force who cannot be guaranteed. At present any man may enrol. Let us be careful that nobody is enrolled about whom we are not quite certain. Ex-service men in the various districts know one another. It is essential that this Force should work locally, for local knowledge will be of the utmost importance. Therefore, the men ought not to be changed about a great deal. I have had representations made to me that some of the men who are volunteering are in doubt whether they will be used locally or transferred to other parts of the

country. The man with local knowledge of his own area will be worth a great deal if an attack takes place. It will be either at dusk or at dawn, and it is essential that the men should know their way about. If men are transferred from one part of the country to another, half their usefulness will go. I was sorry to hear the suggestion turned down that the men should be supplied with steel helmets. They should have the most complete equipment. They will have to meet the most adequately armed, trained and resolute soldiers that Germany can produce. A man who lands in enemy country will stick at nothing. These men must have tin hats. It is absurd to suggest that a forage cap, an armlet and a shot gun are enough for them.

Mr. McGovern: Suppose—which God forbid—50,000 German troops were to land in an area by parachute, will you collect all these volunteers by whistle from the factories, workshops and mines? Surely you must have some permanent Force.

Sir A. Southby: I quite agree with the hon. Member. I do not think men in the factories should do anything in this Force except guard their own factories. It is essential that men in factories working machines should get adequate rest. They cannot be used for night patrols all over the country. The men of this Force are required to take immediate action, to patrol vital places like the vicinity of aerodromes and other objectives where it is essential that the enemy should get no footing, and if they are to do their duty properly, they must be properly armed. It is no good summoning them by whistle. It has been suggested that their arms are to be kept under lock and key in some central place. What is the good, on a dark night, of blowing a whistle, collecting these men in some place and handing them out a mixed grill of arms? Every man should have his rifle and ammunition in his own charge, so that when the emergency takes place he can go out immediately.
Further, provision for transport must be made. By all means have volunteer transport if that is the best that can be done, but it must be organised. Many of the men ought to be given motor bicycles, or even ordinary bicycles. Then there will be casualties. What provision is being made for first-aid for this Force?


There must be some form of medical assistance. I do not believe that in the main, men in reserved occupations should join this Force. Their duty lies where their skilled work is essentially needed. Nor do I think it is really a good thing to bring in young men of 17. One hesitates to imagine what would happen with an untrained young man of that age with a Thomson sub-machine gun in his hands on a dark night. What we want is the steady old soldier who has seen war and knows what to do. He will keep his head, he will carry out his primary duty, which is immediate contact with the enemy until the properly-organised trained Forces of the Army can come up. Of course, nobody suggests that these troops should be working on their own as a kind of roving guerilla band. They must work under the control of the responsible military authority, who will have a concerted scheme for defence and, if parachute troops arrive, a concerted scheme of attack upon the men landing.
I hope nothing will be done to belittle either the usefulness or efficiency of the Force. If the men are to be equipped only with a shot gun, an armlet and a forage cap and are simply to walk out on a kind of patrol, we had better not organise the Force at all. The men are keen to carry out what is a public duty and, indeed, a vital necessity at the present time. We have already wasted one priceless week. Arms could have been sent down to areas all over the country by lorry and have been in the hands of the men by now. I know that this has been done within the last 48 hours in some districts, but I could tell of districts which are vitally in need of protection where no arms have been provided. The men must be armed immediately. An attack may come to-night or to-morrow morning, and if it is to be repelled, it must be repelled the moment it comes and held until the special troops to which the right hon. Gentleman referred can be called up. I hope the Force will not be stultified by being treated as a kind of poor relation of the Army. It ought to be an adequate Force carrying out a specialist duty, and it must be encouraged and armed in the best possible way. More use should be made of the Legion organisation, which can do a great deal to help the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the control and the administration of the Force is one

Under-Secretary's full-time job. It is probably going to be the most important Force in the country. We have seen on the Continent the extraordinary success which has followed the use of parachute troops by the Germans. We have time now to arm ourselves and prepare ourselves to resist any such attack. To have wasted one week already is bad enough; do not let us waste any more time.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I think the gallant commander who has just spoken was mistaken about the real origin of this Force. I do not believe that the War Office originally formed this Force in order to resist invasion. I believe it was formed because the demand of the people in the country was overwhelming—the demand to be allowed to have some part, some weapons and some chance, in order to stand up to these devils when they come. I am confident that the War Office spoke through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. The War Office does think that invasion should be met by Regular troops. Everyone would agree with them—if we had enough Regular troops. The whole genius of this movement is that it provides an additonal force which could not be got at in any other way. It calls in all the people, who are desperately anxious, and who are demanding to have some share in the defence of their country.
We are grateful to the War Office for bringing down their tradition. They have graciously allowed this Force to be formed. They have done it with extraordinary promptitude. A fortnight ago, the Force was not formed, but already, as I understood from the speech of the hon. Baronet, 90,000 uniforms have gone out. That is very good work. I suppose also that a great many rifles have gone out. It is true that many people, like myself, registered, and have never heard anything more about it, because the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway thinks that I am too old. The real thing is that we have got the gift of a new Force inspired by the highest patriotism. The thing to emphasise is that these people are doing it for nothing except for love of country, and they are therefore singularly well suited to meet the


particular form of attack that is facing us at the present time.
They are particularly well suited also because they will not wait for orders. They are largely, probably to the extent of three-quarters at least, old soldiers. Every retired military man up to the age of 80, and every officer, has joined this Force, and put his age down as something else. These people are well qualified to do this work without going dithering about like sheep, as will happen to in experienced troops, asking somebody else what they ought to do. This may not be a Force trained in modern arms, but it is a body of extremely experienced people. In regard to the young people of 17, probably the hon. and gallant Gentleman has read "On Commando," the book published by Denys Reitz, the boy who went through the war at 16. You cannot say that he was not a brave man. These very young and very old people—the old people have not much to live for, anyway—are extremely useful and they are getting what they want. They want only to be used. If you only knew what the ordinary infantry soldier has to carry to-day you would not ask for anything more to be put on to these antiquated survivals.
In the first place, having got this body under the War Office, the most important thing is that they should be gradually absorbed into all the other unpaid or semi-paid services. I believe that the Observer Corps is under the Air Ministry, while A.R.P. is under the Home Office, and the War Reserves are under somewhere else. If this war goes on for a long time it will be well to absorb all these services of civil and military defence, which you cannot have separated perpetually as they are at the present time. They must all come under the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Defence, with the possible exception of first-aid ambulances and transport. The question solves itself if you combine all these forces.
Hon. Members are aware that there are in this country a great many women who shoot extraordinarily well; many of them are match rifle specialists. I do not know why they should be ruled out on account of sex, and why this new Force should not have its counterpart in a women's movement, just as in the case of the Army, Navy and Air Force. So far as arms are concerned, we all put machine guns before rifles and automatic pistols,

but until the people have got them they should be allowed to use anything they have. I hope that the Under-Secretary will stand up to the War Office on this question of magazines. All along it has been the aim of the War Office to keep the weapons and magazines, dating back from the absurd idea that the working classes should not be allowed to have arms because they may start a revolution. The tradition of Peterloo still lingers in that eighteenth century establishment. We have to defend ourselves, and we cannot defend ourselves if first of all we have to go to the police for our arms—

Sir E. Grigg: May I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? That is not what I said. I said that these detachment sections must be under a commander, and they have to come to a rendezvous. The easiest way of making certain that they have their rifles and ammunition is to serve them out at the rendezvous.

Colonel Wedgwood: That is exactly the arrangement I do not like. The arrangement of keeping all the rifles at the rendezvous means that the ordinary man is not armed except during the two hours at dusk and dawn; at other times he has not got this protection which he requires. I raised the matter on the question of factories. When factories were considered the Under-Secretary said that would obviously be one of the places where rifles would be stored. The danger is not of isolated parachutists dropping in the country. The real danger is that Hitler might drop 5,000 parachutists round, say, Ipswich. Within 24 hours ships might come alongside the port and we should be in an extremely difficult position. Hitler would have the port as a jumping off point for the tanks, and it is just that 24 hours which we have to guard against. The fighting in Rotterdam was mostly in the streets of the town. In the country they cannot do half as much harm as they can do in the towns, where they can seize post offices, railway stations, and shoot up all the telephone communications. That is where they can do the damage.
I do not see your patrol organisation meeting the case, because that invasion may come at any time of day or night, not only at dusk or dawn. In any case, you must not rely on this service to do that work. Certainly you cannot rely on


it in the least unless the people have their arms by them, where they work and where they sleep. Let me join with the right hon. Gentleman, and, I am sure, with the Commander, in saying that this force is not any substitute for a complete change of ideas as to how this country must meet invasion. This is not our counter to the new threat. That must be the War Office's job. When I hear from the hon. Member that the War Office rather welcome this move because it enables the training of the troops to continue, because sections will not be broken up, I hope that that does not mean that they are not using the troops at this moment for defence against the enemy.

Sir E. Grigg: I said that if you break up divisions you immobilise them. It is most important that divisions should be ready for instant action where required, and when they are ready for instant action they can continue their training. They should not be immobilised, as they would be if they were broken up.

Colonel Wedgwood: I agree. But if the invasion is on the coast, I assume—

Sir E. Grigg: There is training all over the country. There is no question of training being limited to any area.

Colonel Wedgwood: Yes, but I should be better pleased if I saw a few divisions in all the ports on the East Coast. The danger is of an invasion on the East Coast. For that, you must rely on the Regular Army; and it must be, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the best of the Regular Army. The people who meet the first shock will be those on the East Coast, and the best troops should be on the East Coast. There should be naval defence as well. The whole situation as regards the Fleet and the Army has been completely changed as a result of the revolutionary ideas of the last six weeks. Six weeks ago we did not think invasion was possible. Now we know that it is possible. There must be a complete plan for the military defence of this country. "Parashooters" are a trifling addition to the defence of this country, though we all welcome them. I believe that the area organisations are exactly what we want. As we go on, each area will compete with others in equipment and ideas, and we shall get in time a very efficient Force. But this Force is not a substitute for the

serious defence of this country against parachute invasion.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I listened with great interest to the resumé of the Minister of the duties of this new volunteer Force, and I agree with him that it would be very undesirable for him to say too much about the duties of that Force, otherwise it might be considered that those duties were the only duties necessary to meet the danger. But there is one point upon which I wish he had said something. What will be the relation between this new Force and the civilian police force? If parachute troops were dropped, a state of war would exist, which would enable that Force to have all powers, but at the present time they should be given certain powers that are already possessed by the police. They ought to be given the power to stop and to inspect motor transport, and the right of interrogating pedestrians at night. If the Minister can say something to relieve my anxiety by saying that they will be given that power, I shall be much obliged. I am confident that not only this House, but the whole country will appreciate the introduction of this Measure. It will create a new force, which, although perhaps at the moment somewhat limited in its operation, will increase both with regard to its duties and size. It will be able to take away from existing forces certain duties which can be performed equally well by this new Force, thus making those forces available for more important duties. It will satisfy a craving in the minds of many people in this country who want to serve some useful purpose in this war. If the hon. Member who is to reply can give some indication of the relation between the new Force and the police, I shall be much obliged.
I rather deprecate the idea put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that it is only in towns that there is likely to be danger. I believe there will be very great danger in some of the wide country areas where the enemy will attempt to drop parachute troops if they come over. Railways and bridges are as vital—perhaps more so—in the wide open spaces as they are in the towns. These are objectives which must be guarded.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Price: I wish to endorse what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has just said, that the danger is not solely in the towns and ports but in remote rural areas where there may be mines, as in my constituency, or important road junctions or waterworks, where serious damage might be done by parachute troops. Therefore we must consider these remote areas as possible places of attack, and that leads me to a point that I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman who, I understand, is to reply. I understand that the Under-Secretary to the War Office said that A.R.P. personnel are not ruled out. As a member of the A.R.P. in the part of my constituency where I live, when the call went out I sent in my name to the local police and asked them whether I could join the Local Defence Corps, but as I was a member of the A.R.P., I was told that I could not do so. That was only last week, and I want to know what the position really is. Could not an order be issued setting out the position? In remote rural districts there are plenty of ex-service men who are members of the A.R.P. In fact, local A.R.Ps. are to a large extent recruited from ex-service men or men who have had military training, but they are excluded from this Local Defence Force for that reason.
I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who said that only members of the British Legion should be members of the Defence Force. I know plenty of agricultural labourers who were in the last war and who can handle machine and Lewis guns, and they would be excluded. They are in reserved occupations, it is true, but they could give their services when they have finished their farm work, at dusk. It is necessary to work out the relationship between this new Force that we are trying to organise and the A.R.P. and Special Constabulary. All can play an important role. We cannot expect these men to resist a large force of parachute troops armed with the latest weapons of offence, but it is quite possible for them to watch what is going on while another force is summoned. The A.R.P. authority of which I am a member has received instructions to keep a look-out and have obstructions ready to place across roads at any moment. This is being done. We have instructions to deal

with parachute troops as far as we can. We cannot do much, but the new organisation which is coming along will be armed. We must all assist each other, and I hope there will be proper instructions ond co-ordination so that we can do so.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think the Government must have gathered the impression that while the House welcomes without reservation the opportunity given for the voluntary service of these older men, the House is, on the whole, considerably uneasy as to our whole defensive measures against parachute raiders. I suppose it is asking too much of my hon. Friend to expect him to give a full account to the House, at this stage, of the measures to be adopted throughout the country against these parachutists—

Sir E. Grigg: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that any full account I gave would also be given to the enemy. There really is some need for discretion.

Mr. Stewart: I was not complaining. I was rather excusing my hon. Friend, but at the same time, while we shall not ask the Financial Secretary, who is to reply, to give details, I think the nature of the Debate warrants, even demands, specific assurances to the House that adequate and new measures have been, and are being taken on a most effective scale to deal with this new threatened attack. If we can have such assurances, I am sure we shall accept them most readily. They ought to be given before we go any further with this matter.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) began with a violent attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for having criticised the Government, and thereupon followed with a still more violent criticism of the Government for all their actions in this matter. That is the difficulty we are feeling about this voluntary corps, and I say this as one who has to go on patrol in the early hours of to-morrow morning. The hon. Gentleman indicated what were the duties of this voluntary Force and said they were to carry out observation and give information if there was a raid.
They were also to protect vulnerable places. At the same time he explained


that the Regular Army was not to be dispersed and could not be used for this purpose. One understands that. But these volunteer soldiers will undoubtedly have to meet these parachutists and cope with them. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Army cannot be expected to cope with these parachutists, and therefore, if the Regular Army is not there, you will have to depend on these volunteers. If, in addition to patrolling, they have to stop and open fire, and destroy the parachutists, then you must arm and equip them to do the job effectively.
The right hon. and gallant Member in reply to my interjection said that steel helmets were not necessary because shrapnel will not be used. Surely that was not intended to be a serious answer. I shall certainly wear my steel helmet, which I had during the last war, upon my patrol to-morrow night, because I wish to be ready for an attack by a parachutist using modern arms, and I should regard myself as ineffective if I went on duty without being properly armed. A tin helmet is not very difficult to wear, nor is it so uncomfortable.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is not uncomfortable, but it is no good against bullets.

Mr. Stewart: On the contrary, I speak from practical experience in the last war, and it does send off bullets. I hope the Government will reconsider this matter and will give these men not only adequate arms but adequate protection. There is one small point which I hope the Financial Secretary will deal with. In the rural districts there are people like gamekeepers, shepherds, rural postmen and others, who are constantly doing a tour of duty. Is there any reason why these men should not be armed and carry their weapons while doing their ordinary duties? It seems to me not only appropriate but necessary. There is another point. In my part of the country we are carrying out patrol from dusk to dawn. Thereafter we cease to perform that duty. Is there anyone who is looking for parachutists from dawn to dusk? I do not want a detailed answer, but I want an assurance that someone is detailed to do the job. It was my Question on 13th May which drew from the War Secretary the first public announcement that this Corps was to be formed.

I suggested that there was a vast body of men, not otherwise engaged in any form of national service, who wanted to offer their services in this way. I do not deprecate the value of these volunteer soldiers. I regard their services as of the highest value. I ask that their services shall be recognised by using them in the right way; equipping them properly, arming them effectively, and backing their efforts by the strongest general protection provided by the Army against this new form of attack.

10.45 p.m.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: Many hon. and right hon. Members have suggested to the Under-Secretary of State—and the House seems to have given them a measure of support—that each man in this new Force should be allowed to have his own rifle and to take it home with him. I beg the House most earnestly to reconsider this pressure which it appears to be putting upon the Under-Secretary to take a course which at this stage, I think, would be extremely undesirable. There will be in this Force many young and old people who have never handled weapons before, who do not realise, and cannot realise until they have been trained for a considerable time, what they are doing. Surely, it is not suggested that every citizen is, at his own whim and fancy, to put his head out of the door and "have a pop" at a German. That would lead to chaos. My conception of this Force is that it is an organised and proper Force. It is to move primarily in sections and platoons, and the suggestion that you blow a whistle and everybody runs out and gets his rifle is quite absurd.
I believe that, in the first instance, at any rate, there will be more than sufficient volunteers to enable patrols to be organised for different hours of the day, and to provide each man with a rifle would be to provide four or five times as many rifles as would be necessary, which would be a waste of effort. If, for example, in 24 hours there were six patrols of four hours each, one set of 12 rifles would do for those patrolling through the whole 24 hours; but if every man were to take a rifle home, it would mean providing six times as many rifles, with all the inconvenience and difficulty that would arise. I think the War Office are right, and I hope, at any rate in the early stages, they will issue a general instruction that the


arms are to be used only under the supervision of officers and in proper sections, and that only in exceptional cases are officers to use their discretion and allow the men, and particularly the boys and those who are inexperienced, to take weapons home with them.
I want now to make an observation which occurred to me while the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) was speaking. He criticised the Government, I thought most unjustly, for having improvised this Force at the request of this House and the country. He suggested that these highly-trained parachutists, skilled men, practised men, brave men, must be met by the best troops which we can provide, and not by half-trained amateurs. No doubt we would wish that it were possible to have highly-skilled men fully armed with automatic weapons in every part of the country where parachutists might appear, but I think we all know—and none better than the right hon. Member for Devonport—that it is not possible for us to disperse our highly-seasoned and well-trained troops all over the land in small sections of six and 12.
I would not ask the War Office what dispositions they are making to meet this threat. I have every hope they are making wise and sensible dispositions, but I would hesitate very much to recommend, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recommend, that our existing Regular troops, who are no doubt placed in the proper place where they should be, should be dispersed over heaths and moors and in small towns here, there and everywhere, in order that the best troops should meet these parachutists. Surely, our people have shown themselves willing, inadequately armed as they will be, inadequately trained as they will be, to be the vanguard who can hold up these troops, perhaps for some short time, until the more trained and better troops can be brought up to deal with the situation. That is all I imagine will be asked of this emergency Force, and if it renders that service it will be rendering a very great service and will be filling a breach. To suggest that it is either inadequate, or that the efforts now being made by these citizens should not be appreciated—as the right hon. Gentleman did—because they are not fully armed and fully trained seems to me to miss the whole point. We may have been late in foreseeing this danger, but, at least, it seems to me the

War Office should have the thanks of the House and the country for having acted so promptly in bringing this emergency Force into being.
I would put one question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. What has happened to the "dungaree force," as it was called? Would it not be wise to revive the idea—perhaps in association with the Local Defence Volunteers—of providing machine-guns for factories to be used against low-flying aeroplanes? I am aware that the Under-Secretary said to night that special factories of great importance were adequately provided for, and, no doubt, it is the case that it would be impossible to provide for all factories individually and that all are provided for by the general defence of the areas in which they are situated. There are, however, some isolated factories doing important work, though perhaps not so important as to justify special Army units being placed near them, and these might well be protected by machine-guns and what used to be called the "dungaree army." Could not that idea be revived in connection with the new Force?

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I have not, to my loss, had the opportunity of listening to the whole of the Debate, but I wish to say that, as far as Tyneside is concerned, I have had indications by telephone and post of the desire that such a Force as this should be formed. A great friend of mine—my agent—who was formerly a sergeant in the Army, came to my house to urge that such a Force should be formed, in order, as he said, that he would not feel too soft if these parachutists came clown and would have something to which to defend his wife and family. It seems to me that in connection with the Force use could be made of air-raidwardens' posts, which are already sand-bagged and equipped with telephones and in communication with the police headquarters. When I asked the chief constable of Gateshead what he thought about the project, he said he had already issued revolvers and ammunition to senior officers. In connection with the suggestion that voluntary workers should be used, working in shifts night and day while continuing with their ordinary-avocations, arrangements could be made for these men to report at air-raid wardens' posts, which are to be found


every few hundred yards in most of our cities and towns. The sound of a whistle can be heard for a quarter of a mile, and on being summoned in that way the men could go to the nearest air-raid wardens' post and find their instructions as to their duties. For purposes of co-ordination of effort and making available both men and materials, the use of air-raid wardens' posts would be valuable.

10.55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): At the beginning of this Debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary appealed to the House that no question should be asked of a character which would be embarrassing to the military authorities, if it had to be answered, or which would involve giving information to the enemy. I think that anyone who has listened to this Debate must agree that no such questions were asked and no such embarrassment has been caused. It has been an extremely interesting Debate. It has shown that the House is alive, as the country is, to the danger which threatens us from this new and perhaps rather ruthless form of warfare. But it shows something more than that. It shows that we are not going to be intimidated by this new threat. We are all of us determined to take every possible step to counter it. I think that everything which has been said in the Debate is such as will inspire and encourage the military authorities and not such as to hamper them or cause them any embarrassment at all.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who is not in his place, asked a question which was really, I think, more of an exhortation. He asked whether the establishment of this new Force would be big enough to cover the whole area of the country, or whether it would deal with just selected areas. I think that the answer must be obvious. It is the intention of the Government to see that this new Force does cover every area so far as is possible, and that there shall be no gaps. The House will realise that the scheme has only just been instituted, and that it may be a little time, although we hope it will not be a long time, before complete cover is provided. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) drew attention to what was done in the last

war with regard to the voluntary forces, and, as the Under-Secretary of State informed him, the history of the last war has already been considered and a good deal of valuable hints have been provided by what was done then.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), speaking with obvious authority as former Secretary of State for War, pointed out, I think with justice, that this threat with which we are faced is an extremely severe one and that we cannot afford to be complacent about it. As he pointed out, we have been too late before, and we cannot afford to be too late again. I can assure my right hon. Friend that that is the view of the Government, and that we do not intend to be too late this time, but I think that my right hon. Friend does somewhat misunderstand the purpose of these local Defence Forces. It is not the purpose of these Forces to provide the whole protection of this country from invasion from the air. It is proposed that they should act as a kind of vanguard for the purposes of observation, communication, blocking of roads and so on, until such time as the Home Defence units could be brought up to deal with the parachute invasion. Obviously you could not expect a Force of this kind to be left to deal with an invasion entirely by itself. But that does not alter the fact that it may be able, and will be able, to do work of a most valuable kind in consolidating, or rather preventing the enemy from consolidating their position.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Mr. Law: My right hon. Friend will, I think, admit that this Force will be able to do something and do a good deal to give information of the movement of these troops and keep them under some kind of check until such time as the regular Forces come up. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) made a most surprising and, I thought, gratifying speech. I thought it was surprising because I have heard many speeches from him, and this is the first time I have ever heard him criticise the Government.

Sir A. Southby: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point of view will change considerably now that he has moved to the Front Bench.

Mr. Law: My hon. and gallant Friend will have noticed that as well as being surprising I thought his speech gratifying because I believe that criticism of the Government is a good thing for the Government. I think I might fairly add that if my hon. and gallant Friend had begun his criticism a little earlier, there might have been earlier results.

Sir A. Southby: But my hon. Friend does not know whether I made criticisms or not.

Mr. Law: I said that I heard a great number of speeches from my hon. and gallant Friend, and that this was the first one in which I had heard him criticise the Government. So vehement was his criticism, and so impatient was it—I do not blame him for his impatience because this is obviously a matter of extreme urgency and the more impatient we are the better for the safety of the country—that he said that we had wasted one week already and that we ought not to waste any more time. I cannot help feeling that that is carrying impatience a little too far. After all, it is only just a week since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made this announcement. In that time we have had enrolled this vast army; area, zone and group organisations are already being set up and over a great many parts of the country they have been set up; uniforms have been issued, and the issue of arms and ammunition is proceeding. I do not think the House can say that really is a bad result for the first week. It is a result that will have to be kept up, and it will be kept up, but it is putting it a little too strongly to say that we have wasted a week and must not waste any more time.
My hon. and gallant Friend also put in a plea for the organised ex-service men in the British Legion, and said he would much sooner have seen this organisation transferred to a body of that kind.

Sir A. Southby: I did not say anything of the sort, but that the Legion should be made use of.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member had better let the Minister make his speech at this late hour.

Mr. Law: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. and gallant Friend, but I understood him to say that the British Legion should take over the organisation. A great number of other people have made that suggestion, and in case there are other Members who hold that view—apparently my hon. and gallant Friend does not hold it—I would only say that it would create rather an invidious position if one such organisation, however patriotic and disinterested it may be, were singled out and other equally patriotic organisations were not consulted. My hon. and gallant Friend can reassure himself that the fullest use is no doubt being made of the British Legion through local organisers in the Defence Corps. He pointed out that it was important that members of the force should be vouched for by those who knew their antecedents and character, and that is true, because we do not want any Quislings in the Force. I think he may be assured that it will be extremely difficult for any doubtful character to get into the Force, because each volunteer will have to be vouched for by his commanding officer all the way down the scale, and he will be vouched for personally and from personal experience.
With regard to his point about medical services for the Force, the position is that they will come under the Army medical services and they will also have the advantage of the local A.R.P. services, so they will be looked after fairly satisfactorily in that respect.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) made a most interesting speech in which he showed that that he, too, had a real grasp of the problems which face us in regard to this parachute menace. There is only one point on which I would differ from him, and that is his objection to the rifles being stored in magazines, as he described them, and his preference for their being handed to the volunteers themselves and kept as their personal property. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Lonsdale Division (Sir Ian Fraser) really gave a complete answer on that point.

Colonel Wedgwood: I hope that the hon. Member really understands that many of these people join in order that they may have a weapon to defend their homes and families. It does not meet


the point if they are deprived of that opportunity.

Mr. Law: I think we understand that point of view, but I do not think it will deprive them of the opportunity if the arms are centrally stored. The effect of storing them would be, first, an economy in the use of weapons, and, secondly, that the control and discipline in the organisation would be better. We would not just leave it to the individual to take pot shots from his bedroom window at parachutists as they descended. That would introduce a certain amount of chaos. There must be full discipline and a certain amount of organisation in the Force. Members of it when going on duty must report at a centre and they can receive their arms when they report.
There is one other point, which my hon. Friend did not mention. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said that the real thing behind this decision was the desire that no rifles should get into the hands of the working class. That, if I may say so, is complete nonsense. There is a fear behind this, of which the House must be aware, of arms getting into the hands of some unknown persons of the Fifth Column. That is another reason why they should be kept in a central magazine, and not distributed among people who, however careful they may be, may lose track of them and allow them to get into the hands of individuals who should not have them. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked for an assurance that other and new measures were being undertaken to deal with this menace. I can give him that assurance, but it is obvious that it would be impossible to give details of what is intended, because to give such details to the House of Commons and to the public is to give them also to the enemy. My hon. Friend may be assured that this problem is regarded with the utmost seriousness by the War Office, and that the most earnest and serious efforts are

being made to solve it and to combat the menace of parachute troops. I should add that nothing that has been said in the Debate to-night will in any way embarrass the authorities; on the contrary, everything that has been said, even in criticism, will inspire them to see that everything possible is done to make this Force a real effort in the defence of this country.

Sir J. Lamb: Might I ask my hon. Friend for a reply as to the relations between this Force and the police force?

Mr. Price: There was also the question about A.R.P.

Mr. Law: I am extremely sorry to have omitted to mention those points. In regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), if necessity arises these Forces will be able to help the civil authorities, such as for stopping people and making inquiries.

Sir J. Lamb: I made the special point that during the war these people might be necessary to stop traffic or to stop individuals and interrogate them.

Mr. Law: Perhaps I may inform my hon. Friend about this matter after the Debate. The point raised by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), was whether or not a member of the A.R.P. organisation could join the Local Defence organisation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said at the beginning of the Debate that whether or not a member of the A.R.P. could join this organisation was left to the discretion of the local A.R.P. authority. The hon. Member said that he had tried to join up and had not been allowed to do so, on the ground that he was engaged in the local A.R.P. The only conclusion one can draw from that is that he is too efficient an A.R.P. worker.

Question, "That this House do now Adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.